the case against r.s.bb.m.
Charles M Kozierok
Dave Geiser <GEI...@bscr.uga.edu> wrote:
} I am definitely against "cleaning up" r.s.bb. This puts me in the
} uncomfortable position of agreeing with Maynard, but I'll say that it's
} not our right to decide that it needs cleaning up, or how to do so if
} it does.
You're probably right. The phrase "cleaning up" is probably inappropriate;
I just meant trying to make some sort of effort to reduce the redundancy
and the arguments short of anointing a moderator. It's not my first
choice in any event, though I do think a "SDCN FAQ" is a good idea.
} The suggestion that a stat-head "monitor" be employed to
} answer some questions assumes that there is homogeneity in stat-head
} thinking. I don't think this is true. If someone posts "Joe Carter
} best ever - lots RBIs", different stat-heads might have different
} ways of expressing the party line (RBIs bad for evaluating player),
} each with its own value.
I am going to piss off some people here, but if there is no homogeneity,
why do so many people who call themselves SDCNs or "statheads" respond in
the *plural* to so many posts? I am constantly reading "*we* don't
hate Kirby Puckett" or "*we* don't think W-L means nothing". Of course
there are some differences of opinion, because we are all human and the
SDCNs are mostly intelligent thinkers. But the position as a whole is
pretty well-defined, and I haven't seen too many disagreements on
the "canonical" answer to, say, "Jack McDowell is the best because he
has the most wins". If there are some slight differences, they could
be put in the FAQ as well.
} I like the r.s.bb.analysis idea. I guess it would need to be moderated.
I agree.
} The down-side is that such a group might be a bunch of people preaching
} to the converted. I'm not sure if the above Joe Carter poster would
} read r.s.bb.analysis, and may never hear the party line response.
This could be accomplished by careful cross-posting to the moderated
group. I am sure that there would be *some* people who would read
both groups, and they could also invite readers over to r.s.bb.a on
a periodic basis.
} I think r.s.bb.analysis will best solve the volume problem. But I'll
} vote for anything that will get increased contribution from the prodigal
} posters, including r.s.bb.moderated.
You said in your post that you think the biggest problem that caused
those "prodigies" to leave was volume, and that r.s.bb.m wouldn't
necessarily solve that. Then why vote for r.s.bb.m? If they come back,
and r.s.bb.m doesn't prove any better, what chance will there be
the *next* time we try to reorganize r.s.bb?
I don't know how to go about suggesting r.s.bb.analysis as an alternative,
but I'd like to see it seriously considered before r.s.bb.m goes to a vote.
In fact, it might make sense to have r.s.bb.a go to a vote *first*. If it
fails, I will certainly understand why people might vote for r.s.bb.m
as a "next best thing" (although I would prefer a mailing list over it
as a second choice).
} Finally: is it just my site, or are a number of posts coming up
} 2-4 times?
Haven't noticed that here.
cheers,
-*-
charles
Dave Geiser
> In article <2pv7oo$e...@hobbes.cc.uga.edu>,
> Dave Geiser <GEI...@bscr.uga.edu> wrote:
> }
> } I think r.s.bb.analysis will best solve the volume problem. But I'll
> } vote for anything that will get increased contribution from the prodigal
> } posters, including r.s.bb.moderated.
>
> You said in your post that you think the biggest problem that caused
> those "prodigies" to leave was volume, and that r.s.bb.m wouldn't
> necessarily solve that. Then why vote for r.s.bb.m?
My personal desire is to have increased contribution from certain posters.
If they tell me they'll post in r.s.bb.m and not in r.s.bb.analysis.m.,
for whatever reason, I'll take their word for it and go with the flow.
I hope they'll read what you said and go with r.s.bb.a.m.
> it might make sense to have r.s.bb.a go to a vote *first*. If it
> fails, I will certainly understand why people might vote for r.s.bb.m
> as a "next best thing".
I agree. What do others think?
Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Geiser Department of Genetics University of Georgia
CHAMBERLAIN, MICHAEL
>In <2q0mbs...@life.ai.mit.edu> i...@cocoa-chex.ai.mit.edu writes:
>
>> In article <2pv7oo$e...@hobbes.cc.uga.edu>,
>> Dave Geiser <GEI...@bscr.uga.edu> wrote:
>> }
>> } I think r.s.bb.analysis will best solve the volume problem. But I'll
>> } vote for anything that will get increased contribution from the prodigal
>> } posters, including r.s.bb.moderated.
>>
>> You said in your post that you think the biggest problem that caused
>> those "prodigies" to leave was volume, and that r.s.bb.m wouldn't
>> necessarily solve that. Then why vote for r.s.bb.m?
>
>My personal desire is to have increased contribution from certain posters.
>If they tell me they'll post in r.s.bb.m and not in r.s.bb.analysis.m.,
>for whatever reason, I'll take their word for it and go with the flow.
>
>I hope they'll read what you said and go with r.s.bb.a.m.
>
>> it might make sense to have r.s.bb.a go to a vote *first*. If it
>> fails, I will certainly understand why people might vote for r.s.bb.m
>> as a "next best thing".
>
>I agree. What do others think?
I have been very uncomfortable with this r.s.bb.m. proposal all along
but will vote in favor of it if only in the interests of promoting more
choice. Charles was able to articulate much better than I ever could
what my concerns about r.s.bb.m. are, specifically regarding my suspicion
that the actual levels of flaming and general noise are not as high
as some think. The r.s.bb.a.m. idea makes much more sense. The name,
at least, reflects what it seems that Gary, Ted, et al are looking for
much better than r.s.bb.m. does. I still think that a new group is
unnecessary.
Cheers,
-Mike
>
The Econoclast
>>> You said in your post that you think the biggest problem that caused
>>> those "prodigies" to leave was volume, and that r.s.bb.m wouldn't
>>> necessarily solve that. Then why vote for r.s.bb.m?
Charles,
You put in a lot of work on your post!
I really appreciate it. Just as I appreciate your posts to the BJ
list.
But I'm not sure I accept your results/conclusions.
In particular, I was about to stop reading r.s.bb when Ted posted his
RFD, and the main reason was I like to see a mix of postings, but
preferably only about 30 or 40 each day. I.e., I'm willing to wade
through some chaff and noise if it isn't overwhelming, but I can't go
through 70 - 150 each day. Even though I'm on sabbatical, I have other
things I want to do besides scan articles for the few gems I want to
read each day. [and despite my unabashed support for alt.bb.sabr, I
also like to read other things about baseball]. To repeat, it is
simply the volume that is so daunting.
So I was distressed (initially) to read:
>P11. Sheer volume
> --> Those who currently don't read r.s.bb because of the
> sheer volume won't read r.s.bb.m either. Sorry, but
> 100 posts is almost as untenable as 130. If you try
> to cut it down more you lose lots of "signal" and become
> very arbitrary. No solution here.
I think it is a mistake to generalize from the past to what would
happen on r.s.bb.m. At current net volumes, the 100 posts you
identified probably represents an outside maximum. The actual number
of submissions to r.s.bb.m would likely be much smaller for several
reasons.
When people read moderated newsgroups, they often hesitate
before submitting an article. Some fear rejection. Others don't want
to put up with the time delay. Still others resent the process of
moderation.
My own forecast is that there would be a volume of between 30 - 50
postings (and not just "analysis", however the moderator(s) would
define it) on r.s.bb.m
I know you've put a lot of work and thought into this issue, Charles.
I expect that you would not ordinarily perform a simple extrapolation
of the past into the future when you know that other conditions will
change as well. Why did you make this extrapolation here?
--
John Palmer London, Ontario Voice: (519) 661-3500 FAX: 661-3666
jpa...@uwovax.uwo.ca Former Radio Voice of the former London Tigers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the day they give babies away, with a half a pound of tea.
You open the lid, and out pops the kid, with a ten-year guarantee.
--
John Palmer London, Ontario Voice: (519) 661-3500 FAX: 661-3666
jpa...@uwovax.uwo.ca Former Radio Voice of the former London Tigers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the day they give babies away, with a half a pound of tea.
You open the lid, and out pops the kid, with a ten-year guarantee.
Scott Southwick
>The actual number
>of submissions to r.s.bb.m would likely be much smaller for several
>reasons.
>
>When people read moderated newsgroups, they often hesitate
>before submitting an article. Some fear rejection. Others don't want
>to put up with the time delay. Still others resent the process of
>moderation.
John's points here are excellent (they're all things I suspected
myself as I read Charles' post)... This is a serious consideration:
traffic on r.s.bb.m (or call it r.s.bb.a.m) should be minimal, with
most of it well-thought-out stuff.
Also, as someone else pointed out, flak *is* way down this week. I
think Charles' research skewed this even further by eliminating
r.s.bb.m posts from his count--because that's where all the jokers,
myself included, are hanging out this week. Two weeks ago and two
weeks from now, the flames will be in "baseball" threads, like "(Was
Show)".
yrs,
Scotty
--
************** Scott Southwick/sco...@indiana.edu *****************
UCS Wordsmith
fiction at http://scwww.ucs.indiana.edu/scpeople/scotty
Roger Maynard
>But I'm not sure I accept your results/conclusions.
Well if you aren't sure why don't you hold off posting until you are sure?
[John Palmer's wants deleted]
>So I was distressed (initially) to read:
>>P11. Sheer volume
>> --> Those who currently don't read r.s.bb because of the
>> sheer volume won't read r.s.bb.m either. Sorry, but
>> 100 posts is almost as untenable as 130. If you try
>> to cut it down more you lose lots of "signal" and become
>> very arbitrary. No solution here.
>I think it is a mistake to generalize from the past to what would
>happen on r.s.bb.m. At current net volumes, the 100 posts you
>identified probably represents an outside maximum. The actual number
>of submissions to r.s.bb.m would likely be much smaller for several
>reasons.
Nonsense.
>When people read moderated newsgroups, they often hesitate
>before submitting an article. Some fear rejection. Others don't want
>to put up with the time delay. Still others resent the process of
>moderation.
And of course those who don't have time to wade through the so-called "chaff"
are supposed to return to the new group and this will drive volume up.
>My own forecast is that there would be a volume of between 30 - 50
>postings (and not just "analysis", however the moderator(s) would
>define it) on r.s.bb.m
And how exactly did you make this forecast? Not the "gut instinct" method
I hope.
Right now the NBA and NHL are having playoffs. Presuming that a few of those
that would post to the new group are actually sport fans they might currently
be following other groups.
Furthermore a lot of students that were posting earlier have lost net access
for the summer. They will be back in Sept.
Furthermore usenet usage is going to continue to grow. The reason for the
volume is that there are more users of all types and not just flamers.
>I know you've put a lot of work and thought into this issue, Charles.
Don't you think that you kissed Charles' ass enough in the intro?
>I expect that you would not ordinarily perform a simple extrapolation
>of the past into the future when you know that other conditions will
>change as well. Why did you make this extrapolation here?
Right. And do you give us any data to support your "forecast" of between
30-50? No.
What it comes down to is that you want to be in a little club with Gary
and Dave and Ted and Mike and Greg and Sherri and maybe about a dozen
more. Well I say go ahead and form your little club. But since it will
hardly be representative of rec.sport.baseball it should hardly have the
same name. How about rec.stat.baseball.moderated?
cordially, as always,
rm
--
Roger Maynard
may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Stephen Weick
|> >>In <2q0mbs...@life.ai.mit.edu> i...@cocoa-chex.ai.mit.edu writes:
|>
|> >>> You said in your post that you think the biggest problem that caused
|> >>> those "prodigies" to leave was volume, and that r.s.bb.m wouldn't
|> >>> necessarily solve that. Then why vote for r.s.bb.m?
|>
|>
|>
|> >P11. Sheer volume
|> > --> Those who currently don't read r.s.bb because of the
|> > sheer volume won't read r.s.bb.m either. Sorry, but
|> > 100 posts is almost as untenable as 130. If you try
|> > to cut it down more you lose lots of "signal" and become
|> > very arbitrary. No solution here.
|>
|> I think it is a mistake to generalize from the past to what would
|> happen on r.s.bb.m. At current net volumes, the 100 posts you
|> identified probably represents an outside maximum. The actual number
|> of submissions to r.s.bb.m would likely be much smaller for several
|> reasons.
|>
|> When people read moderated newsgroups, they often hesitate
|> before submitting an article. Some fear rejection. Others don't want
|> to put up with the time delay. Still others resent the process of
|> moderation.
|>
|> My own forecast is that there would be a volume of between 30 - 50
|> postings (and not just "analysis", however the moderator(s) would
|> define it) on r.s.bb.m
|>
|> I know you've put a lot of work and thought into this issue, Charles.
|> I expect that you would not ordinarily perform a simple extrapolation
|> of the past into the future when you know that other conditions will
|> change as well. Why did you make this extrapolation here?
|>
|> --
The more I read, the more confused I get. Is the purpose of r.s.bb.m to
stop noise or to select your reading? How in the world are you getting
down to 30 postings a day without excluding many of the this that are listed
in Charles rundown to be included per Ted, Liu, etc. ? I am becoming strongly
against this since the idea seems now to be to exclude newcomers and have a
'The Old Gangs' group. I was on the verge of being neutral.
Charles has a idea that while I disagree with, is defined. NO WHERE IS THERE
A DAMN DEFINITION AS TO WHAT THE HELL IS ALLOWED ON r.s.bb.m . Sorry, lost
my temper :-|. This is the most irritating thing about this discussion. Only
one person has defined his idea. I fear people will be voting on what they
think it will mean and will greatly be disappointed at the failure predicted
by Charles. By the way, Charles gave his numbers and backed them up. I am
still waiting for some actual numbers to come from anyone else, besides the
"I feel.. " dribble that a person who works with any numbers will tell you is
not worth the hot air expelled. If you forecast, please BACK IT UP with some
real numbers! Unless it's a "I hope(feel,think,etc)..) type of touchy-feelly
type of forcasting( best done with animal entrails) that's being done.
Sorry about the anger, but this is getting frustrating.
Stephen Weick
The Econoclast
> In article <1994May1...@uwovax.uwo.ca>, jpa...@uwovax.uwo.ca (The Econoclast) writes:
> |> I think it is a mistake to generalize from the past to what would
> |> happen on r.s.bb.m. At current net volumes, the 100 posts you
> |> identified probably represents an outside maximum. The actual number
> |> of submissions to r.s.bb.m would likely be much smaller for several
> |> When people read moderated newsgroups, they often hesitate
> |> before submitting an article. Some fear rejection. Others don't want
> |> to put up with the time delay. Still others resent the process of
> |> moderation.
> |>
> |> My own forecast is that there would be a volume of between 30 - 50
> |> postings (and not just "analysis", however the moderator(s) would
> |> define it) on r.s.bb.m
Note that here I said "not just 'analysis'".
> The more I read, the more confused I get. Is the purpose of r.s.bb.m to
> stop noise or to select your reading? How in the world are you getting
> down to 30 postings a day without excluding many of the this that are listed
> in Charles rundown to be included per Ted, Liu, etc. ? I am becoming strongly
> against this since the idea seems now to be to exclude newcomers and have a
> 'The Old Gangs' group. I was on the verge of being neutral.
Stephen,
I have no desire to create r.s.bb.m as an "old gang" group. As
I said in my original post, I would like it to cover lots of topics.
I see no reason why it would exclude newcomers. I would hope
it wouldn't.
I'm not looking for a moderator to select _topics_ for my
baseball reading. Instead, I'm expecting that the process of having
postings go through a moderator will both reduce the noise and reduce
the volume of postings on the moderated group. That's the way it works
in other moderated groups.
> by Charles. By the way, Charles gave his numbers and backed them up. I am
> still waiting for some actual numbers to come from anyone else, besides the
> "I feel.. " dribble that a person who works with any numbers will tell you is
> not worth the hot air expelled. If you forecast, please BACK IT UP with some
> real numbers! Unless it's a "I hope(feel,think,etc)..) type of touchy-feelly
> type of forcasting( best done with animal entrails) that's being done.
Charles gave a point (vs. interval) estimate based on a specific
sampling and many unspecified assumptions. I suggested that
his point estimate would really be a maximum because the
implicit assumptions would not hold if r.s.bb.m were created.
I do not have hard numbers as to what would happen if r.s.bb.m
were created. No one does. Susor says the number of postings
will be microscopic, Charles extrapolates that they would not be much
less than the volume on r.s.bb now (in which case r.s.bb would be
quite small in comparison with r.s.bb.m, a phenomenon which doesn't
occur in other groups).
I don't think my scaling down of Charles' numbers is unreasonable. It
is probably less "touchy-feely", being based on what happens in other
groups, than just implying that "I believe what has happened in the
past will continue to happen in the future even though the
circumstances have changed."
Jim_...@transarc.com
> First, I'd like to thank Charles for a well-thought out and well-
> expressed post. I offer the following comments:
>
> I think the biggest problem with r.s.bb. nowadays is something you
> didn't list: certain favorite (to many of us) contributors are either
> contributing much less, or not at all anymore. Of course, the cause of
> that is the 13 problems you listed. I think the biggest problem causing
> the exodus is volume, and you've convinced me that r.s.bb.m won't
> necessarily solve that.
>
Actually, I think there is one more thing that causes "old-timers" to
post less. They've seen it all before. Many of the arguments we're
having now are nearly the same as arguments we had two years ago (and
18 months ago, and one year ago, and six months ago). This is the
nature of the net. We get new people, who haven't seen all these
arguments before, and thus start a debate. But the result often is
some people don't enter into these debates after the third or fourth
time.
(This isn't just true of the baseball group, of course. I post a lot
less to the books and SF groups than I did two years ago, because
there are certain topics that I've already debated there a couple of
times and I have no desire to do so again.)
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 338-4442
John C. Davenport
>expressed post. I offer the following comments:
Agreed. Excellent work, Charles.
>I think the biggest problem with r.s.bb. nowadays is something you
>didn't list: certain favorite (to many of us) contributors are either
>contributing much less, or not at all anymore. Of course, the cause of
>that is the 13 problems you listed. I think the biggest problem causing
>the exodus is volume, and you've convinced me that r.s.bb.m won't
>necessarily solve that.
Nothing, I'm afraid, is going to stop that. The increase in usenet
volume, whether its the number of posts or the number have people who
have the capacity to post, is going up exponentially.
The original RFD did not call specifically for a moderated group. It
announced a problem, and proposed several solutions. The moderated
idea has been the most discussed, but the spinoff idea was also mentioned.
These are two fundamentally different approaches to the problem: one
seeks to dam the access (controlling what goes over the spillway, as
it were), while one would divert it entirely.
In any event: the only way I know to reduce volume is to split the
group into more clearly defined groups, that either trust in a
moderator or the goodness of the people involved to stay focused on
its goals. I don't much like the idea; its the diversity that makes
this a great group. But lately I'bve been drowning in it, when I'm
not being figuratively beaten up by some of the group's renegades.
Ultimately, a split of the group seems inevitable. I think some kind
of authority is needed, as well. You can call it police, Nazism,
censorship, or whatever words you choose: the current situation is one
of anarchy and brigandage. A little ensurance of tranquility is
appropriate.
>
>I like the r.s.bb.analysis idea. I guess it would need to be moderated.
>The down-side is that such a group might be a bunch of people preaching
>to the converted. I'm not sure if the above Joe Carter poster would
>read r.s.bb.analysis, and may never hear the party line response.
I am beginning to favor Mark's idea of a split between information and
discussion. I would call the group r.s.bb.discussion, for that reason,
and it would be moderated. It might also be called r.s.bb.opinions,
because the group would focus on discussion, opinions, and
interpretation rather than facts and figures. As such, it definitely
would allow discussions of what an owner should do, or why Fielder/
Griffey/Puckett/Carter are over/under liked by different groups, why
Cal's streak is hurting him, how a player's mood affects his game,
what should be done about headhunting. It would not include things
like player birthdays, or league standings, or schedules, or things
like DA or DTs: those are purely objective things, and would remain in
rsbb. Discussion about what, if anything, they mean, and studies to
back up opinions, will be welcome. A discussion about the differences
between American and Japanese leagues is suitable; an update on the
Japanese standings, even of the Beloved Swallows struggle against the
Hated Giants, would remain on rsbb.
As such, it has a narrower profile than what has been floated before,
and so is more likely to keep volume within a single moderator's
ability. Ideally, it could act as a sort of highlight reel of rsbb,
where discussions of what it all means could be carried to those who,
because of volume, have retreated from the main group. A subsidiary,
if you will. An elite subsidiary? That may well be. There is a
dichotomy in this group, between those who think looking at the stats
helps understand the game and those who think the stats have no part
in the game. Any proposal that does not at least recognize that is
silly. If it means that the staheads won't have to put up with Roger,
and that he won't have to read their pronouncements, then everybody
should emerge a little happier than before.
Which is what we all want. I think.
--
Clay D.
jc...@virginia.edu
A manager who'd bat Flynn and Blake ahead of Casey is an idiot.
Jeffrey Zirker
|>In article <2q18h8$3...@hobbes.cc.uga.edu>,
|>Dave Geiser <GEI...@bscr.uga.edu> wrote:
|>} My personal desire is to have increased contribution from certain posters.
|>} If they tell me they'll post in r.s.bb.m and not in r.s.bb.analysis.m.,
|>} for whatever reason, I'll take their word for it and go with the flow.
|>
|>as a second choice. There is obviously some desire out there for
|>some sort of a moderated group.
|>
|>} > it might make sense to have r.s.bb.a go to a vote *first*. If it
|>} > fails, I will certainly understand why people might vote for r.s.bb.m
|>} > as a "next best thing".
|>}
|>} I agree. What do others think?
|>
|>
|>I hope people will respond about the r.s.bb.analysis idea. If there
|>is interest, I will post a sample charter and look into an RFD. The
|>situation is complicated by the already existing RFD. I also don't
|>want to do anything before hearing from the major proponents of
|>r.s.bb.m; I especially want to hear Ted Frank's and Gary Huckabay's
|>thoughts (but others' as well too of course!)
I think we should RFD one thing at a time. Let's let r.s.bb.m play itself out
to the end, and then bring up r.s.bb.a. If they both get RFD'ed, CFV'ed and
implemented, people can go wherever they like. But let's not fill r.s.bb with
more than one RFD at a time.
All these acronyms are fun...
JAZ
Charles M Kozierok
Dave Geiser <GEI...@bscr.uga.edu> wrote:
} My personal desire is to have increased contribution from certain posters.
} If they tell me they'll post in r.s.bb.m and not in r.s.bb.analysis.m.,
} for whatever reason, I'll take their word for it and go with the flow.
Fair enough. As I said, I don't think r.s.bb.m would be unreasonable
as a second choice. There is obviously some desire out there for
some sort of a moderated group.
} > it might make sense to have r.s.bb.a go to a vote *first*. If it
} > fails, I will certainly understand why people might vote for r.s.bb.m
} > as a "next best thing".
}
} I agree. What do others think?
Thanks for the support, Dave.
I hope people will respond about the r.s.bb.analysis idea. If there
is interest, I will post a sample charter and look into an RFD. The
situation is complicated by the already existing RFD. I also don't
want to do anything before hearing from the major proponents of
r.s.bb.m; I especially want to hear Ted Frank's and Gary Huckabay's
thoughts (but others' as well too of course!)
cheers,
-*-
charles
BONVICINI,GIOV./EP
I hope I won't look like someone trying to put down Charles excellent post
(the stats about the 692 posts). That was a lot of work but it will change
little if anything in the voting. People have a perception of where the group
is and will vote accordingly. If you read this group mostly for REC.reation,
a flamewar will be magnified in your eyes. I did the very same thing for another
group in a similar situation (I scanned only 160 posts, and it looked like a
lot!), and there likewise the numbers did not support at all a split.
Very few flames. Nevertheless the split passed on the strength of many people
tired of flamewars.
I will get to answer Dave's question in a moment, but first let me point out
a few things. The new group will probably get enough votes, but the radio
silence of our promoters means that they are just now tackling the charter
issue, and might be in deep water as far as moderators are concerned.
If these things are not solved, we are just wasting our time.
A very good reason to have the new group, whatever the name, is that a forum
be preserved where consensus can be achieved by means of rational argumentation.
It is particularly important that this group, at the cutting edge of baseball
analysis, be preserved - news organizations are moving into the Internet,
and is only a matter of time before this group attracts the attention it
deserves. It is not far-fetched to think it might influence b-ball sportwriting.
r.s.b.a. might focus people's posting towards the thing they do best,
as well as limit the volume to 50 posts a day, which I believe is the max
a human moderator can take.
Hence the best aspect of this proposal is its volume, which in turn is
deterimned by reducing the available topics and by making it more focussed.
I am still surprised that the newswriters in this group have not
jumped at the chance of moderating a low-volume group. Here is a chance
for someone to get a grasp of stat. analysis applied to sports
that no other situation could give them.
rsb would then revert to what normal sport groups are: a place where no
consensus can be achieved, and there are all of these spontaneous sport
fan expressions which might be not so interesting to many. the equivalent
of the football group, in other words. I suspect that even the promoters
are by now sensitive to the volume problem, and we might hear from them soon.
I would enjoy 50 posts a day because then I would read this group more than
once a week, and moderation because I dislike net.loons.
G.B.
Heather Henderson
>I am definitely against "cleaning up" r.s.bb. This puts me in the
>uncomfortable position of agreeing with Maynard, but I'll say that it's
>not our right to decide that it needs cleaning up, or how to do so if
>it does.
I agree.
>The suggestion that a stat-head "monitor" be employed to
>answer some questions assumes that there is homogeneity in stat-head
>thinking. I don't think this is true. If someone posts "Joe Carter
>best ever - lots RBIs", different stat-heads might have different
>ways of expressing the party line (RBIs bad for evaluating player),
>each with its own value.
The fact that stathead *have* a "party line" indicates homogeneity in
thinking. If you want to reduce repetitive postings, a good start would
be to discourage stathead pile-ons. If one person can present a cogent
argument as to why RBIs are a bad stat, you don't need eight more people
doing the same thing.
>I like the r.s.bb.analysis idea. I guess it would need to be moderated.
>The down-side is that such a group might be a bunch of people preaching
>to the converted. I'm not sure if the above Joe Carter poster would
>read r.s.bb.analysis, and may never hear the party line response.
If the Joe Carter poster is interested in statistical analysis, he's likely
to read r.s.bb.analysis. If he isn't, then he was probably just posting
to express his adoration of Joe Carter, and he'll probably take exception
to being contradicted and lectured -- with ugly results that we see here
on r.s.bb. continually.
>I think r.s.bb.analysis will best solve the volume problem. But I'll
>vote for anything that will get increased contribution from the prodigal
>posters, including r.s.bb.moderated.
I would not vote for r.s.bb.moderated, since I have yet to see a sensible
charter for the group. I don't think any individuals, even non-statheads,
should be able to control the content of a broadly-defined group named
rec.sport.baseball. Such a group should be open to ALL, no matter how
rude or clueless, and should be able to accommodate discussion of ANY
subject related (even distantly) to baseball. It's not worth losing
that freedom in order to regain a few prodigal posters.
I would vote for a subgroup devoted to stathead special interests (and
named accordingly), whether it's called r.s.bb.analysis, or r.s.bb.stats,
or sci.math.stats.baseball.
Heather Henderson (HHEND...@vax.clarku.edu)
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Fanaticism? No. Writing is exciting
and baseball is like writing.
You can never tell with either
how it will go
or what you will do -- Marianne Moore
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Stephen Weick
|> In article <2q1qfn$d...@ns.mcs.kent.edu>, swe...@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (Stephen Weick) writes:
|> > In article <1994May1...@uwovax.uwo.ca>, jpa...@uwovax.uwo.ca (The Econoclast) writes:
|>
|> > The more I read, the more confused I get. Is the purpose of r.s.bb.m to
|> > stop noise or to select your reading? How in the world are you getting
|> > down to 30 postings a day without excluding many of the this that are listed
|> > in Charles rundown to be included per Ted, Liu, etc. ? I am becoming strongly
|> > against this since the idea seems now to be to exclude newcomers and have a
|> > 'The Old Gangs' group. I was on the verge of being neutral.
|>
|> Stephen,
|>
|> I have no desire to create r.s.bb.m as an "old gang" group. As
|> I said in my original post, I would like it to cover lots of topics.
|>
|> I see no reason why it would exclude newcomers. I would hope
|> it wouldn't.
|>
|> I'm not looking for a moderator to select _topics_ for my
|> baseball reading. Instead, I'm expecting that the process of having
|> postings go through a moderator will both reduce the noise and reduce
|> the volume of postings on the moderated group. That's the way it works
|> in other moderated groups.
The problem is a lack of a true charter with the guidelines of what is and
isn't permitted. From all the other posting I have seen for r.s.bb.m, it
still seems that people are putting their own views as to what is and isn't
permitted. Roger Maynard for example. Some say yes he would be able to post,
others say no way. If you can't decide on the obvious flamebaiters, how can
you cut down on the size ?
Also, the internet will keep growing and growing and growing... So unless you
restrict access to 30-50 postings and only allow the 'old boys (and girls, sorry
Sherri ;-) network' to have that access, it will not slow things up. Obviously,
a new person will have substantially a lesser chance to post to r.s.bb.m than
a old hand that the moderator, probably from the OB&GN, knows. Even the most
fair and open-handed moderator will go for the posting that has the best form,
structure and meeting of requirements that a old hand will have learned and the
newbie won't know.
|>[My frustrations on est. # of posting zapped]
|>
|> Charles gave a point (vs. interval) estimate based on a specific
|> sampling and many unspecified assumptions. I suggested that
|> his point estimate would really be a maximum because the
|> implicit assumptions would not hold if r.s.bb.m were created.
|> I do not have hard numbers as to what would happen if r.s.bb.m
|> were created. No one does. Susor says the number of postings
|> will be microscopic, Charles extrapolates that they would not be much
|> less than the volume on r.s.bb now (in which case r.s.bb would be
|> quite small in comparison with r.s.bb.m, a phenomenon which doesn't
|> occur in other groups).
|>
|> I don't think my scaling down of Charles' numbers is unreasonable. It
|> is probably less "touchy-feely", being based on what happens in other
|> groups, than just implying that "I believe what has happened in the
|> past will continue to happen in the future even though the
|> circumstances have changed."
Yes, but will this be true in baseball. Other than religion and politics, I
can think of nothing that can bring a rise like baseball. "Willie, Mickey and
the Duke" was created based on the countless arguements about which was better
(obviously Willie Mays ;). Moderation will not reduce this unless you force
a very restrictive charter or have "bastards" moderators. r.s.bb.a will do
this, but will be for the OB&GN only.
Still, I will subscribe to both. So will most of the others. I think all
of the supporters will be disappointed when either they get postings
excluded or you will have 100 postings a day in r.s.bb.m and another 150
in r.s.bb also.
Stephen Weick
(Who still is waiting for the full story on charter,moderators,# of postings etc)
Charles M Kozierok
The Econoclast <jpa...@uwovax.uwo.ca> wrote:
} >>In <2q0mbs...@life.ai.mit.edu> i...@cocoa-chex.ai.mit.edu writes:
}
} >>> You said in your post that you think the biggest problem that caused
} >>> those "prodigies" to leave was volume, and that r.s.bb.m wouldn't
} >>> necessarily solve that. Then why vote for r.s.bb.m?
}
} Charles,
}
} You put in a lot of work on your post!
}
} I really appreciate it. Just as I appreciate your posts to the BJ
} list.
Thanks very much. About half-way through that post I started to
wonder if it was worth it and you folks have made me feel glad
that I muddled through.
} To repeat, it is
} simply the volume that is so daunting.
Others have expressed a similar frustration.
} I think it is a mistake to generalize from the past to what would
} happen on r.s.bb.m. At current net volumes, the 100 posts you
} identified probably represents an outside maximum. The actual number
} of submissions to r.s.bb.m would likely be much smaller for several
} reasons.
}
} When people read moderated newsgroups, they often hesitate
} before submitting an article. Some fear rejection. Others don't want
} to put up with the time delay. Still others resent the process of
} moderation.
}
} My own forecast is that there would be a volume of between 30 - 50
} postings (and not just "analysis", however the moderator(s) would
} define it) on r.s.bb.m
}
} I know you've put a lot of work and thought into this issue, Charles.
} I expect that you would not ordinarily perform a simple extrapolation
} of the past into the future when you know that other conditions will
} change as well. Why did you make this extrapolation here?
It's actually quite simple. I made my assessment of what would be
in or out based on the goal of the group as described by Ted, Gary
and others. In summary, I saw what they wanted as:
r.s.bb.m = r.s.bb - (chaff + woofing + flames + routine info
+ repetition)
+ contributions from those who have left
Yes, that's not quite accurate. But the intention of the group, as stated,
was to remove certain classes of "objectionable" and/or "uninteresting"
material while leaving in discussions of interest to baseball fans.
That is what I tried to portray.
It is entirely possible that the volume will drop to 30-50 posts, as you
say. But if it does, it will be either because the number of topics
drops dramatically, or the number of posters does. In either case,
the group is a failure based on what its proponents say they want.
Having a moderated group where people "fear" posting is pointless,
isn't it? And even the staunchest defenders of r.s.bb.m have
expressed concern that a group without "chaff" but also without new,
fresh posters is not necessarily a good tradeoff.
To reduce the volume *at all costs* was not what I understood
the purpose of r.s.bb.m to be. Do you really have that much faith
that letting the whims of moderation reduce the volume by 2/3
for you will be better than randomly trashing 2/3 of the posts
in the current r.s.bb?
thanks for your post,
-*-
charles
Charles M Kozierok
Heather Henderson <hhend...@vax.clarku.edu> wrote:
} I would vote for a subgroup devoted to stathead special interests (and
} named accordingly), whether it's called r.s.bb.analysis, or r.s.bb.stats,
} or sci.math.stats.baseball.
I would just like to point out to all that the charter of a potential
r.s.bb.analysis group has yet to be defined. I personally would hope that
it would encompass far more than just "statistical analysis", and would
include debates about how to evaluate players, non-statistical analysis
(yes, it does exist) and other related topics. Recall that one goal
of this group is that it not become a sterile "yes man" haven; r.s.bb.a
should preserve debate.
Also, there is some question still of how exactly r.s.bb.a should be
moderated, if at all. I still think the only moderation that should
go on a group even like r.s.bb.a should be to eliminate:
- off-topic posts (and with a charter, this is not so controversial usually)
- blatant flames/personal attacks
More to come later if r.s.bb.a looks popular.
cheers,
-*-
charles
The Econoclast
>...
> say. But if it does, it will be either because the number of topics
> drops dramatically, or the number of posters does. In either case,
> the group is a failure based on what its proponents say they want.
> Having a moderated group where people "fear" posting is pointless,
> isn't it? And even the staunchest defenders of r.s.bb.m have
> expressed concern that a group without "chaff" but also without new,
> fresh posters is not necessarily a good tradeoff.
I disagree with your position here, Charles. To have only 30 - 50
posts would indeed likely reduce the number of topics and the number
of posters _in any given day_. I would gladly suffer the reduced
variety to get reduced volume, especially if the reduced volume were
to come more from reduced numbers of posts that are of the "pile on", "me
too", requests for info, flamewars than from discussions and analysis.
Much of the chaff on the net is frequently the result of newbies who
post without reading for awhile. If moderation leads to some increased
hesitation to post on the part of new readers, I'll be even happier.
It's not that I want an "old gang" group; it's that I'd like new
readers to read for awhile before posting.
> To reduce the volume *at all costs* was not what I understood
> the purpose of r.s.bb.m to be. Do you really have that much faith
> that letting the whims of moderation reduce the volume by 2/3
> for you will be better than randomly trashing 2/3 of the posts
> in the current r.s.bb?
I wasn't recommending reducing volume at all costs. I doubt if Ted or
Gary is either. Surely if I expected the costs to outweigh the
benefits (with an understanding that we have only fuzzy estimates of
both), I'd vote against r.s.bb.m.
Yes, I do have that much faith. I have tried randomly reading only
about 30 posts/day and found that very unsatisfying. There was lots of
chaff, flaming, and flame-baiting, and very little interesting
discussion of baseball. I think what you refer to rhetorically as "the
whims of moderation" would do a much better job.
As to content, I doubt that as many FACPAC calls for entries and
updates should appear on r.s.bb.m - the rest should go to r.s.bb.
Similarly, and to cast a likely dissenting vote here, I'd be happy if
the poster kept the birthdays in r.s.bb - everyone who mentions
them says, "I'm not interested, but they can be in r.s.bb.m" If so few
people are interested, they should be in r.s.bb.
I used to read rec.humour regularly. It got out of hand,though, with
flames and irrelevant drek; now I just read r.h.f.
Similarly, I read rec.backcountry and sci.econ. In both of these
groups, the volume is getting too high to read and do anything else.
So I skip lots of posts. I'm hoping a moderated baseball group will
reduce that problem here.
I am, quite openly and honestly, looking for a moderated group that
will reduce my search and scan time. Even with kill files and scanning
topics, it still takes quite a while each day to wade through r.s.bb.
If r.s.bb.m passes, though, I will only
rarely read r.s.bb. Even though London lost its pro ball team and didn't
get a new one, I have other things I want to do with my time.
--
Doc Palmer London, Ontario Voice: (519) 661-3500 FAX: 661-3666
jpa...@uwovax.uwo.ca Former Radio Voice of the former London Tigers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branch Manager, Middlesex County Branch, Huckabay-Kirsch Weight-Loss Clinic
Milt Epstein
I haven't yet made up my mind on r.s.bb.m, but if it does come down to
creating r.s.bb.a, I was wondering whether it would really need to be
moderated. If the charter was clear, and with a decent FAQ, and with
r.s.bb still around, that might be enough to keep it on track. Or
perhaps it could be possible to write it into the charter that it's
left unmoderated on a trial basis, and if it doesn't work out, it
becomes moderated. I'm not sure whether that's kosher,
newsgroup-wise.
--
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
eps...@cs.uiuc.edu
Charles M Kozierok
Scott Southwick <sco...@habanero.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
} John's points here are excellent (they're all things I suspected
} myself as I read Charles' post)... This is a serious consideration:
} traffic on r.s.bb.m (or call it r.s.bb.a.m) should be minimal, with
} most of it well-thought-out stuff.
Again, consider the reasons for the reduced volume if it occurs at all.
Will it be from reduced participation, or drastically reduced variety
of contribution? Either way, the purpose of the group as defined is
missed.
I also see little evidence to support most of the volume
being "well-thought-out", unless you just mean the average IQ
will go up by the absence of woofs.
} Also, as someone else pointed out, flak *is* way down this week. I
} think Charles' research skewed this even further by eliminating
} r.s.bb.m posts from his count--because that's where all the jokers,
} myself included, are hanging out this week. Two weeks ago and two
} weeks from now, the flames will be in "baseball" threads, like "(Was
} Show)".
To be honest, if the "jokers" aren't on r.s.bb.m, I won't read it
and I'll bet lots of others won't either. This is all rather ironic
since some of my favorite posts on r.s.bb over the last two years
have been Gary Huckabay's humorous responses on many topics. He has
a gift for humor that I doubt would even be "allowed" in the overly-
serious r.s.bb.m. After all, not being strictly baseball-related,
it would be "chaff".
cheers,
-*-
charles
Ted Frank
>> |> I think it is a mistake to generalize from the past to what would
>> |> happen on r.s.bb.m. At current net volumes, the 100 posts you
>> |> identified probably represents an outside maximum. The actual number
>> |> of submissions to r.s.bb.m would likely be much smaller for several
>> |> reasons:
> > |> When people read moderated newsgroups, they often hesitate
> > |> before submitting an article. Some fear rejection. Others don't want
> > |> to put up with the time delay. Still others resent the process of
> > |> moderation.
>> |>
>> |> My own forecast is that there would be a volume of between 30 - 50
>> |> postings (and not just "analysis", however the moderator(s) would
>> |> define it) on r.s.bb.m
I think this is entirely accurate.
Before the split, misc.legal had about 100 posts a day, about 5-10% of
which was signal.
In the last ten days, misc.legal has had about 60/day, and
misc.legal.moderated had about 10-20/day.
Mr. Kozierok's analysis assumes that *everyone* currently posting to
r.s.bb will move wholesale to r.s.bb.m. This won't happen. A significant
number of readers and posters will; others won't; others will read and
post to both.
I will be very surprised if volume in r.s.bb.m is more than half of what
it is now in r.s.bb. That 77% of the last 700 non-meta-posts would be
*accepted* doesn't mean they would be *posted*. For example, some involve
threads that have three or four exchanges a day. The pace of those
threads would very much slow down.
Too, certain posters whose sole purpose lately is to be antagonistic to
individuals and posters rather than discussing baseball have moved
wholesale into the r.s.bb.m meta-threads. Charles only counts a handful
of flames, but that's because the flamers have been flaming in threads
like these instead of threads about Ken Griffey.
> I'm not looking for a moderator to select _topics_ for my
>baseball reading. Instead, I'm expecting that the process of having
>postings go through a moderator will both reduce the noise and reduce
>the volume of postings on the moderated group. That's the way it works
>in other moderated groups.
Well put.
--
ted frank
the law skool
the u of c 61 u chi l rev 639
kibo#=0.5
Ted Frank
>Someone else wrote:
>} Also, as someone else pointed out, flak *is* way down this week. I
>} think Charles' research skewed this even further by eliminating
>} r.s.bb.m posts from his count--because that's where all the jokers,
>} myself included, are hanging out this week. Two weeks ago and two
>} weeks from now, the flames will be in "baseball" threads, like "(Was
>} Show)".
>
>To be honest, if the "jokers" aren't on r.s.bb.m, I won't read it
>and I'll bet lots of others won't either. This is all rather ironic
>since some of my favorite posts on r.s.bb over the last two years
>have been Gary Huckabay's humorous responses on many topics. He has
>a gift for humor that I doubt would even be "allowed" in the overly-
>serious r.s.bb.m. After all, not being strictly baseball-related,
>it would be "chaff".
I wouldn't read a newsgroup that would reject Gary's posts, either.
But I do take strenuous exception to your definition of them as
"chaff." I fail to see why humor and quality writing about baseball
are mutually exclusive.
Take a look at Bill James at his peak, for example.
Jeff Drummond
In article <2q3bss...@life.ai.mit.edu>, i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
[ stuff deleted ]
> I hope people will respond about the r.s.bb.analysis idea. If there
> is interest, I will post a sample charter and look into an RFD. The
> situation is complicated by the already existing RFD. I also don't
> want to do anything before hearing from the major proponents of
> r.s.bb.m; I especially want to hear Ted Frank's and Gary Huckabay's
> thoughts (but others' as well too of course!)
I'm starting to lean towards the r.s.bb.analysis approach, even though it
will probably exclude humorous postings of the type which are my only real
claim to fame (such as it is).
I wonder if r.s.bb.analysis could work as an unmoderated group? The name
(and presence of r.s.bb) might deflect much of the chaff. Maybe it could
be started up with a robomoderator (automatically accepts all submissions)
with a real moderator substituted only if/when necessary. Just a thought.
> cheers,
>
> -*-
> charles
-Jeff j...@cray.com
--
"When a rookie hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao."
-Lao "Lefty" Tzu in _The_Tao_of_Baseball_, Chapter 41.
Charles M Kozierok
Ted Frank <th...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
} In article <1994May2...@uwovax.uwo.ca> jpa...@uwovax.uwo.ca (The Econoclast) writes:
} >> |> My own forecast is that there would be a volume of between 30 - 50
} >> |> postings (and not just "analysis", however the moderator(s) would
} >> |> define it) on r.s.bb.m
}
} I think this is entirely accurate.
}
} Before the split, misc.legal had about 100 posts a day, about 5-10% of
} which was signal.
Is this the basis for your prediction? If so, we might as well stop
right here. Because if this is the underlying fact behind your
extrapolation of misc.legal.moderated into r.s.bb.moderated, such
equivalence is absolute *nonsense*. I don't know what happened to
misc.legal, but r.s.bb is nowhere *near* 5-10% signal. It is 2/3
signal *at the very least*. I demonstrated that in my survey.
Even if you add 20 chaff posts a day to account for the "all the
flamers are in the r.s.bb.m threads" argument, you are still at
2/3 signal.
Unless you have a *very* interesting definition of "signal".
What is it, by the way?
And another thing: a baseball group is a *very* different animal
than a legal group. Baseball has far more universal appeal,
and comparing the two of them is rather spurious, in general.
} Mr. Kozierok's analysis assumes that *everyone* currently posting to
} r.s.bb will move wholesale to r.s.bb.m.
(Charles is fine, btw).
Actually, I *did* assume that, but that was for a specific reason;
it doesn't necessarily mean that I think it will happen. The goal
of r.s.bb.m was supposed to be to get rid of the "chaff" while
leaving the baseball discussions behind. I used your own answers
to Michael's questions to decide what is chaff, plus my own
judgment. The result I got was posted.
} I will be very surprised if volume in r.s.bb.m is more than half of what
} it is now in r.s.bb. That 77% of the last 700 non-meta-posts would be
} *accepted* doesn't mean they would be *posted*.
And you have no problem with that? Is the goal of r.s.bb.m "reduced
volume at any cost"? Look at it this way: if 100 posts a day would
be accepted but not posted, WHY would they not be posted? You are
in essence admitting that r.s.bb.m will arbitrarily reduce the
baseball discussions because some people either won't want to be
bothered with a moderator or won't know about the group. I find
that abhorrent.
What will really happen if half the volume goes to r.s.bb.m is
a homogenization of the posters and the topics. I would prefer
that this be done formally, with a proper charter, and it not
be called r.s.bb.m.
} For example, some involve
} threads that have three or four exchanges a day. The pace of those
} threads would very much slow down.
Miniscule effect. Most exchanges are already effectively limited
by propogation delay. If the goal is 12-hour turnaround, as some
have posted, the difference would be negligible.
And how about the alleged plethora of old timers who are going to
return?
Face it: you are proposing a catch-22. If r.s.bb.m becomes
the Garden of Eden that everyone is suggesting it will be,
everyone will come over to it. And then it won't be a Garden
any more.
} Too, certain posters whose sole purpose lately is to be antagonistic to
} individuals and posters rather than discussing baseball have moved
} wholesale into the r.s.bb.m meta-threads. Charles only counts a handful
} of flames, but that's because the flamers have been flaming in threads
} like these instead of threads about Ken Griffey.
Relevant to a percentage argument--if I accept your point, and I
do only partially--totally irrelevant from a gross numbers standpoint.
Instead of my suggesting that 100 of 130 posts would be accepted,
I would suggest that say 100 of 145 posts would be.
} > I'm not looking for a moderator to select _topics_ for my
} >baseball reading. Instead, I'm expecting that the process of having
} >postings go through a moderator will both reduce the noise and reduce
} >the volume of postings on the moderated group. That's the way it works
} >in other moderated groups.
}
} Well put.
Really? Then tell me WHY the volume will be reduced. Tell me how,
if the volume *is* reduced, that it won't be at the expense of
new posters or the variety of threads.
BTW: if you have a charter for this proposed group, now is the
time to post it. There is a LOT of speculation going on and it
is getting confusing.
cheers,
-*-
charles
BONVICINI,GIOV./EP
Why are you folks still debating rsbm so hotly, when nearly everyone is
liking rsba (moderated) and that is what we will likely get to vote?
And you will probably vote both the same way?
David M. Tate
be a good idea. Like many others, I can't say until I see a draft charter.
In article <2MAY94....@vax.clarku.edu> hhend...@vax.clarku.edu (Heather Henderson) writes:
>GEI...@bscr.uga.edu (Dave Geiser) wrote:
>I would not vote for r.s.bb.moderated, since I have yet to see a sensible
>charter for the group. I don't think any individuals, even non-statheads,
>should be able to control the content of a broadly-defined group named
>rec.sport.baseball.
It wouldn't be called rec.sport.baseball. That name is taken already.
>Such a group should be open to ALL, no matter how
>rude or clueless, and should be able to accommodate discussion of ANY
>subject related (even distantly) to baseball.
That group already exists. It is called "rec.sport.baseball"; you posted
this article to it. That group would still exist, and would presumably
continue to serve whatever purpose it is that you think it serves. No one
has proposed doing anything to rec.sport.baseball.
>It's not worth losing
>that freedom in order to regain a few prodigal posters.
I fail to see that you (or anyone else) would "lose" anything. In fact, if
you so chose, you could completely ignore the existence of the new group,
and might never notice the difference. Where have your freedoms been
infringed?
>I would vote for a subgroup devoted to stathead special interests (and
>named accordingly), whether it's called r.s.bb.analysis, or r.s.bb.stats,
>or sci.math.stats.baseball.
I might vote for such a group, too, but it would serve a purpose very
different from that proposed for r.s.bb.moderated.
(Incidentally, the name "sci.math.stats.baseball", or for that matter the
name sci.math.<anything about baseball> would be completely unacceptable
to the denizens of the sci.math hierarchy, and would never pass. r.s.bb.a
is a much better choice, IMO.)
--
David M. Tate | "And did those cleats in ancient time
dt...@unixd.cis.pitt.edu | Walk beneath Fenway's monster green?
William "Toe" Blake | And was the holy Sultan of Swat
"The New Cooperstown" | In Yankee's pleasant pastures seen?"
David M. Tate
C Carlton Fisk (2226)
1B Eddie Murray (2378+)
2B Eddie Collins (2650)
SS Luis Aparicio (2581)
3B Brooks Robinson (2870)
OF Ty Cobb (2935)
OF Willie Mays (2843)
OF Henry Aaron (2760)
SP Cy Young (815 starts)
RP Kent Tekulve (1050 relief appearances)
(Sorry, breakdown of games by LF/CF/RF unavailable.)
Most of those (except Tekulve) are fairly intuitive, especially since Fisk
and Murray were in the news recently about this.
So here's a quick trivia question (answers below):
Name the 4 players not on this list who have nevertheless played
in more MLB games than anyone on the list.
Pete Rose is obvious; 3562 games, but at 4 different positions. The next
two are not quite as obvious, but still intuitive:
Carl Yastrzemski (3308) and Stan Musial (3026) both played forever, and both
split their careers between LF and 1B.
The last one on the list surprised me. I would have guessed Al Kaline at
this point, but that's not the right answer. National leaguer...
Voici Le Grand Orange. Rusty Staub played in 2951 games: 1675 OF, 477 DH,
426 1B, and therefore at least 373 games solely as a pinch hitter (he had
358 career PH at bats, and God knows how many walks/HBP/etc. as a pinch
hitter). In 1983, he appeared in 104 games but only played 10 in the field,
with 129 plate appearances (plus any HBP).
David M. Tate
>To reduce the volume *at all costs* was not what I understood
>the purpose of r.s.bb.m to be. Do you really have that much faith
>that letting the whims of moderation reduce the volume by 2/3
>for you will be better than randomly trashing 2/3 of the posts
>in the current r.s.bb?
Certainly. The primary filter would be "Do I want to take the time and
effort to put my comments into the required form?". All by itself, that
will both eliminate most of the worst offenders (e.g. 127 quoted lines,
followed by a "me too"), and improve the quality of what does get posted.
If nothing else, the existence of a moderator (*any* moderator) will help
to enforce the 10 minute rule.
I'm still not necessarily in favor of r.s.bb.m, but it seems obvious to me
that the result of an x% reduction in volume through the existence of a
moderator would lead to a better group than simply deleting a random x% of
all articles. Or were you being facetious?
David Grabiner
> So here's a quick trivia question (answers below):
> Name the 4 players not on this list who have nevertheless played
> in more MLB games than anyone on the list.
This should read, "have played more MLB games than anyone on the list
played at his own position." Cobb played more total games than two of
the other four players.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Ken Harding
generally lower than the rest, but I always thought that first
was a relatively easy position to play, physically that is. I
understand why the total games played for catchers, shortstops
and pitchers are low, but why so low for 1bmen?
Stephen Weick
I think its because the position is for the best hitter who isn't
a great fielding player. As such, if the hitter declines even a
small amount he will be replaced. OTOH, most outfielders have
good enough arms to play out in RF or LF for a long time before
having to go to 1B. With as many options, it is not surprising
that only great hitters will stay a long time at 1B.
Does this make sense.(invitation for additional analysis 8-)
Stephen Weick
Charles M Kozierok
Milt Epstein <eps...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
} I haven't yet made up my mind on r.s.bb.m, but if it does come down to
} creating r.s.bb.a, I was wondering whether it would really need to be
} moderated. If the charter was clear, and with a decent FAQ, and with
} r.s.bb still around, that might be enough to keep it on track. Or
} perhaps it could be possible to write it into the charter that it's
} left unmoderated on a trial basis, and if it doesn't work out, it
} becomes moderated. I'm not sure whether that's kosher,
} newsgroup-wise.
I think it *does* need to be moderated, for a couple of reasons.
First, getting rid of the *real* chaff (empty posts, misdirected
posts, pure flames, one-line woofs, wacko newsposters, etc.)
seems to be an almost universal objective, and moderation is
needed for that. Second, because of all the confusion about
how the group should be split, etc., I think it is important
that, at least at first, the posts allowed on r.s.bb.a be made
to reflect the charter. Let them stray too far and the charges
of "this is no better than r.s.bb was" will start practically
the first week. Third, I think there will be more support for
the group if it is moderated--getting rid of the flame-wars
seems to be an item high on most people's priority list and
unfortunately I have little doubt that if r.s.bb.a is formed
there will be some people who will make it their personal
mission to fill it with flames. Fourth, I speculate--
if anyone knows, please tell me--that it would be easier
to remove the moderation from an existing group than to
add it later.
cheers,
-*-
charles
Dave Geiser
> I am beginning to favor Mark's idea of a split between information and
> discussion. I would call the group r.s.bb.discussion, for that reason,
> and it would be moderated. It might also be called r.s.bb.opinions,
> because the group would focus on discussion, opinions, and
> interpretation rather than facts and figures.
I assume you don't mean that fact- and figure-based discussions, opinions
and interpretations would not fit in this group. It would be very difficult
to separate the two. Would Dale Stephenson's HoF analysis based on peaks
belong? This is basically Dale's opinion of who belongs in the HoF, with
the statistical data supporting his point, even though these posts have
more numbers than letters. You say you wouldn't post the DT's in this group,
but they contain a lot of interesting discussion and interpretation in the
commentary that goes with them. I would want this to go into the ideal
moderated group I envision, and I think it falls under the heading of
discussion/opinion/interpretation quite well.
> As such, it definitely
> would allow discussions of what an owner should do, or why Fielder/
> Griffey/Puckett/Carter are over/under liked by different groups, why
> Cal's streak is hurting him, how a player's mood affects his game,
> what should be done about headhunting. It would not include things
> like player birthdays, or league standings, or schedules, or things
> like DA or DTs: those are purely objective things, and would remain in
> rsbb. Discussion about what, if anything, they mean, and studies to
> back up opinions, will be welcome. A discussion about the differences
> between American and Japanese leagues is suitable; an update on the
> Japanese standings, even of the Beloved Swallows struggle against the
> Hated Giants, would remain on rsbb.
This sounds a lot like what I hoped r.s.bb.analysis.moderated would be.
Perhaps .analysis sounds a little too statty (a new adjective!),
so maybe .opinions or .discussion is better. But it comes down to semantics
really.
Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Geiser Department of Genetics University of Georgia
RVES...@vma.cc.nd.edu
"or we could call it r.s.b.opinions".
if this is the route we're going to take, i'd like to suggest that
"discussion" would be a superior name. after all, "alfredo griffin
is the greatest player in history you god damned fucking loser, end
of story, period!" is certainly an opinion.
bob vesterman.
Rusty Miller
>GEI...@bscr.uga.edu (Dave Geiser) writes:
>
>Actually, I think there is one more thing that causes "old-timers" to
>post less. They've seen it all before. Many of the arguments we're
>having now are nearly the same as arguments we had two years ago (and
>18 months ago, and one year ago, and six months ago). This is the
>nature of the net. We get new people, who haven't seen all these
>arguments before, and thus start a debate. But the result often is
>some people don't enter into these debates after the third or fourth
>time.
>
This is an interesting thought. To what extent do people think this
is true? Does this argue for r.s.bb.oldtimers? Seriously, though,
I've been reading r.s.bb for a year and the second time the
J.Carter/RBI thread started over the winter I about pulled my hair
out. I can easily see how over the course of many years, certain
people will simply post less.
As an aside, could someone please send me the "work" that Charles
has been getting so much praise for. Our server has limited capacity
and I lost it with a back-log over the weekend. Thanks.
I'd futher add, that I will be disappointed to see this group split.
I very much enjoy reading all the stat-head arguements. But, also
enjoy the non-stat related discussions. It does seem that the
splinter group is for the most part stat-heads, but please correct
me if my perception is wrong.
As I see it, the value of stats is to enhance the game and how
fans view it -- even improving how it is played (managed?). But,
this value is only realized when people disagree with a new idea
flushed out by the numbers and its analysis. It sounds like
many people just don't think much of this stuff is new anymore.
Is it boredom?
Rusty
r...@greenwich.com