Fire alex cora

[moonslav59]

It’s not my fault human thinking is full of pre-conceived biases. There are entire fields of psychology dedicated to it.

 

Do you honestly think you are free from biases?

 

I try my hardest to always keep an open mind and be unbiased. I try not to pre-judge people or discriminate, yet I know I am biased- maybe even more than many are.

 

With objectivity and truth under assault, these days, it's hard to know anything is real anymore.

 

It seemed like a .300 BA was something one could grasp and hold onto.

[notin]

I try my hardest to always keep an open mind and be unbiased. I try not to pre-judge people or discriminate, yet I know I am biased- maybe even more than many are.

 

With objectivity and truth under assault, these days, it's hard to know anything is real anymore.

 

It seemed like a .300 BA was something one could grasp and hold onto.

 

We all try to be unbiased, but even the act of trying to be open-minded can cause people to create compensation biases...

[a700hitter]

Too bad you don’t get to pick and choose who witnesses a murder...

Other than a confession, an eyewitness is the most reliable evidence in court. A witnesses testimony can be impeached in a number of different ways, but characterizing eyewitness testimony as unreliable is completely incorrect.

[a700hitter]

Too bad you don’t get to pick and choose who witnesses a murder...

Mobsters and organized crime always opt for no witnesses, because eyewitness testimony is very hard to refute in a murder case. It is usually handled by silencing the witness permanently.

[notin]

Other than a confession, an eyewitness is the most reliable evidence in court. A witnesses testimony can be impeached in a number of different ways, but characterizing eyewitness testimony as unreliable is completely incorrect.

 

Psychologists apparently disagree.

 

 

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html

 

But “most reliable in court” might be open to interpretation. For example, from the viewpoint of a prosecuting attorney, for example, if eyewitness testimony is better for a conviction, he might prefer it as being more reliable to serve his means.

 

But I find it hard to believe eyewitness testimony is better at determining the truth than DNA, for example. But it is certainly cheaper...

[a700hitter]

Psychologists apparently disagree.

 

 

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html

 

But “most reliable in court” might be open to interpretation. For example, from the viewpoint of a prosecuting attorney, for example, if eyewitness testimony is better for a conviction, he might prefer it as being more reliable to serve his means.

 

But I find it hard to believe eyewitness testimony is better at determining the truth than DNA, for example. But it is certainly cheaper...

Psychologists don't try cases. When confronted with eyewitness testimony, the opposition has an uphill battle to discredit it. Again, that is why organized criminals take great care to prevent eyewitness testimony. It is also very useful to exculpate someone if their is an eyewitness alibi.

[jad]

There is of course a huge difference between getting a conviction and getting at the truth. I believe it was Dick Cheney (may have been Rumsfeld, but I don't think so) who unabashedly supported torturing prisoners because it was a very effective method for "getting confessions and thus convictions."

[Bellhorn04]

But I find it hard to believe eyewitness testimony is better at determining the truth than DNA, for example. But it is certainly cheaper...

 

DNA turned into an incredibly expensive, time-consuming and confusing mess in the OJ trial.

 

Critics of the prosecution said they should have relied more on easily grasped things, like OJ's joyride in the Bronco, and less on DNA.

[moonslav59]

Other than a confession, an eyewitness is the most reliable evidence in court. A witnesses testimony can be impeached in a number of different ways, but characterizing eyewitness testimony as unreliable is completely incorrect.

 

That's just not true, except maybe back in the days of Perry Mason. Finger prints, video/audio recordings, GPS, phone records and DNA evidence is more reliable than eye witnesses.

[S5Dewey]

It’s not my fault human thinking is full of pre-conceived biases. There are entire fields of psychology dedicated to it.

 

Do you honestly think you are free from biases?

 

No. Do you?

 

That's why I'm willing to say that things like momentum and clutch have value as do statistics. However, every time i verbalize that I'm met with a 'brick wall' of statistics and the cry of "anecdotal evidence".

 

Now you tell me who has the biases.

Edited October 21, 2019 by S5Dewey

[harmony]

Psychologists don't try cases. When confronted with eyewitness testimony, the opposition has an uphill battle to discredit it. Again, that is why organized criminals take great care to prevent eyewitness testimony. It is also very useful to exculpate someone if their is an eyewitness alibi.

Don't confuse reliability with persuasiveness.

 

Eyewitness testimony may be highly persuasive with a jury despite its documented lack of reliability.

[notin]

Psychologists don't try cases. When confronted with eyewitness testimony, the opposition has an uphill battle to discredit it. Again, that is why organized criminals take great care to prevent eyewitness testimony. It is also very useful to exculpate someone if their is an eyewitness alibi.

 

While that all might be true, certainly there are also static’s about the reliability of eyewitness testimony with regards to other forms of proof.

 

If someone makes a comparitive statement that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of proof, then what forms are less reliable? I take it you’re an attorney. Or were one. If so, did you prefer eyewitness testimony over, say, DNA testing? If so, why? And I get maybe the answer is “because juries believe it better” or “juries identify with it better.” But again, does that make it more accurate?

[Bellhorn04]

While that all might be true, certainly there are also static’s about the reliability of eyewitness testimony with regards to other forms of proof.

 

If someone makes a comparitive statement that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of proof, then what forms are less reliable? I take it you’re an attorney. Or were one. If so, did you prefer eyewitness testimony over, say, DNA testing? If so, why? And I get maybe the answer is “because juries believe it better” or “juries identify with it better.” But again, does that make it more accurate?

 

In some cases eyewitness testimony is 100% accurate. As with many things there's a whole range of outcomes, right?

 

And 700hitter is obviously right when he says that organized criminals take care to prevent it.

[moonslav59]

Eye witness convictions are overthrown on DNA evidence every day.

[notin]

No. Do you?

 

That's why I'm willing to say that things like momentum and clutch have value as do statistics. However, every time i verbalize that I'm met with a 'brick wall' of statistics and the cry of "anecdotal evidence".

 

Now you tell me who has the biases.

 

Oh hell no i don’t think I’m free from all the normal biases associated with normal human observation.

 

And as a human, I’ve probably even cited biased statistics, which can also be easily skewed. But even in that case, they’re certainly more reliable than casual observation when it comes to taking the “intangibles” into account.

 

But that’s also why, when I see a statistic that surprises me, I dig deeper. An obvious one we both questioned this year was JBJ’s low UZR this year. When I looked into the numbers, I realized a likely cause wasn’t poor defensive play; it was simply a reduced involvement compared to his peers. I believe you chose the route of calling the number flawed. But if JBJ or any fielder simply lacks opportunity compared to other CF’s, I’d expect it to be reflected in his metrics exactly as it was, which means maybe there was no flaw. Wouldn’t you expect it to be reflected that way?

[notin]

In some cases eyewitness testimony is 100% accurate. As with many things there's a whole range of outcomes, right?

 

And 700hitter is obviously right when he says that organized criminals take care to prevent it.

 

... which is why Fangraphs won’t employ them to calculate UZR data.

 

“Hey Tony? Did you see that catch by JBJ?”

 

“Sure did, Vinnie. But so did a lot of other people. Maybe too many other people.”

[notin]

Eye witness convictions are overthrown on DNA evidence every day.

 

Of course, even DNA evidence is not without its flaws.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn

[Slasher9]

Every single MLB player past and present 100% believe momentum, clutch, and chock exist.

Perception is reality. No matter what the stats say.

[S5Dewey]

Oh hell no i don’t think I’m free from all the normal biases associated with normal human observation.

 

And as a human, I’ve probably even cited biased statistics, which can also be easily skewed. But even in that case, they’re certainly more reliable than casual observation when it comes to taking the “intangibles” into account.

 

But that’s also why, when I see a statistic that surprises me, I dig deeper. An obvious one we both questioned this year was JBJ’s low UZR this year. When I looked into the numbers, I realized a likely cause wasn’t poor defensive play; it was simply a reduced involvement compared to his peers. I believe you chose the route of calling the number flawed. But if JBJ or any fielder simply lacks opportunity compared to other CF’s, I’d expect it to be reflected in his metrics exactly as it was, which means maybe there was no flaw. Wouldn’t you expect it to be reflected that way?

 

Now there's an "interesting" spin! In an absolute statistical way you're right but in the real world the flaw is in the way it's presented as JBJ's true ability to chase down batted baseballs. It's 'honest' but disingenuous.

 

Most people would look at JBJ's UZR and say, "Hmm... I thought he was better than that. Oh well, the stats say he's not so he must not be." That's an over-reliance on statistics, but it's brought on by the 'stat geeks' insisting that the stats always represent a player's true worth - and the lemmings buying into it.

[S5Dewey]

Every single MLB player past and present 100% believe momentum, clutch, and chock exist.

Perception is reality. No matter what the stats say.

 

This isn't a swipe at anyone here, but I find it mind-boggling that anyone who's ever played or coached sports at any level could believe that momentum, clutch, and 'chock' don't exist.

[notin]

Now there's an "interesting" spin! In an absolute statistical way you're right but in the real world the flaw is in the way it's presented as JBJ's true ability to chase down batted baseballs. It's 'honest' but disingenuous.

 

Most people would look at JBJ's UZR and say, "Hmm... I thought he was better than that. Oh well, the stats say he's not so he must not be." That's an over-reliance on statistics, but it's brought on by the 'stat geeks' insisting that the stats always represent a player's true worth - and the lemmings buying into it.

 

My fist though on this commentary would be "you simply don't understand what the statistic means." But to be fair, if the statisitic is misinterpreted, it is possible part of that flaw falls upon an inadequate definition and a confusing nature. Bottom line - like all stats, they are history and not ability.

 

We see that same issue with all stats, and most make the incorrect assumption that in the large volume, all things equal out. To an extent they do, but in many cases, we are dealing with miniscule differences that the nature are inherent to the nature of the game.

 

Take batting average.

 

Tim Anderson won the batting title by .008, or a [pace for 8 hits in 1,000 at bats, or 4 hits over a season. Was Anderson a better hitter? Or did he have an advantage because they did not face the same pitchers? LeMahieu, for example, did not face any Yankee strting pitching, which was a disadvantage. Anderson got to face the Royals and Tigers pitchers more frequently.

 

We have always assumed these advantages and disadvantages equal out over large sample sizes. But did Anderson have an easier path to getting 4 more hits?

[notin]

This isn't a swipe at anyone here, but I find it mind-boggling that anyone who's ever played or coached sports at any level could believe that momentum, clutch, and 'chock' don't exist.

 

I would argue the counterpoint that just because they exist in Little League or high school doesn't mean they exist in MLB. We are dealing with elite athletes here, the bst in the world.

 

I've said before that even the worst player in MLB is better at baseball (not MLB-caliber baseball, but baseball in general) than any of us are at anything. A big part of the reason any of these players can rise to be among the best 750 players in the world is their ability to handle competitive pressures most of us simply don't and can't understand. The talent gap between, say, the 700th best player in the world and the 800th best player in the world probably isn't that large, but what can separate them is their psychology and ability to handle situations. And that is why one is in MLB and the other is in AAA.

 

It's like how any athlete can dominate lesser competition but how many can step up against equal or better? If you've ever watched a dominant college athlete fail miserably in the pros, you know what i am talking about here...

[notin]

This isn't a swipe at anyone here, but I find it mind-boggling that anyone who's ever played or coached sports at any level could believe that momentum, clutch, and 'chock' don't exist.

 

Also I'd point out there is a mega difference between getting a clutch hit and being a clutch hitter.

 

Plenty of players in MLB have gotten clutch hits and no one disputes that. The whole argument surrounds the ability of any player to supercede his talent in key situations. Most of the players who have gotten multiple clutch hits or turned in mutliple clutch pitching performances are always players like Ortiz, Pedro, Schilling, Jack Morris. In short, some of the best players in the game. These players are really prime examples of players unaffected by pressure that i previously discussed and turn in their normal elite performance regardless of the situation.

 

Now Pat Tabler. That man was a clutch freak...

[S5Dewey]

 

Tim Anderson won the batting title by .008, or a [pace for 8 hits in 1,000 at bats, or 4 hits over a season. Was Anderson a better hitter? Or did he have an advantage because they did not face the same pitchers? LeMahieu, for example, did not face any Yankee strting pitching, which was a disadvantage. Anderson got to face the Royals and Tigers pitchers more frequently.

 

We have always assumed these advantages and disadvantages equal out over large sample sizes. But did Anderson have an easier path to getting 4 more hits?

 

I'm copying and pasting this from my recent post: "That's an over-reliance on statistics, but it's brought on by the 'stat geeks' insisting that the stats always represent a player's true worth - and the lemmings buying into it."

 

While it's possible that Anderson was favored by facing pitchers with a higher WHIP - but at the same time it's equally as possible that the reverse is true and he faced pitchers with a lower WHIP. We don't know.

 

It's a great example of why I don't blindly accept statistics. IMO they serve a purpose as an indicator but so does the oft- maligned eye test. (See: our discussion of JBJ & UZR). Neither is perfect. There's room for both. And at the end of the day why does it matter? It's baseball. Let's not make it as much fun as doing our taxes.

[moonslav59]

What stat geek ever uses the words "always represent the true value...?"

[notin]

I'm copying and pasting this from my recent post: "That's an over-reliance on statistics, but it's brought on by the 'stat geeks' insisting that the stats always represent a player's true worth - and the lemmings buying into it."

 

While it's possible that Anderson was favored by facing pitchers with a higher WHIP - but at the same time it's equally as possible that the reverse is true and he faced pitchers with a lower WHIP. We don't know.

 

It's a great example of why I don't blindly accept statistics. IMO they serve a purpose as an indicator but so does the oft- maligned eye test. (See: our discussion of JBJ & UZR). Neither is perfect. There's room for both. And at the end of the day why does it matter? It's baseball. Let's not make it as much fun as doing our taxes.

 

I like stats, but the more i dig into them and place some sort of mathematical scale on them, the more I see how closely tied they all are. For example, nearly every player in MLB will get hits between 20 and 30 percent of the time. And every team has nine people all hitting within this very tight range. Yet over the course of a full season, this can still lead to a difference of about 400 runs between the best and worst teams, which is an extreme chunk considering teams rarely score 1,000 runs in a season.

 

I also think it's funny how fans like to magnify thse soetimes faily small differences. There isn't much difference between a .290 hitter and a .230 hitter, but one is glorified and the other reviled. Or a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA and a pitcher with a 3.50 ERA. In a 180IP season, that's only a difference of 10 earned runs - that could be 2 bad innings - but we look at them so differently. Those 2 IP could be the difference between being the 2 or 3 guy on a team and being a Cy Young candidate...

[S5Dewey]

 

The talent gap between, say, the 700th best player in the world and the 800th best player in the world probably isn't that large, but what can separate them is their psychology and ability to handle situations. And that is why one is in MLB and the other is in AAA.

Now that we've established that it is their ability to "handle situations", why is it so difficult to think that there's a difference between the ... say... top 20% of MLB players and everyone else in their ability to handle those situations. And isn't how they handle situations pretty much the definition of 'clutch'?

 

BTW, to be plain, I'm not saying that something magical happens at the 21st %..it's a sliding scale.

[a700hitter]

DNA turned into an incredibly expensive, time-consuming and confusing mess in the OJ trial.

 

Critics of the prosecution said they should have relied more on easily grasped things, like OJ's joyride in the Bronco, and less on DNA.

Not true.

[S5Dewey]

What stat geek ever uses the words "always represent the true value...?"

 

Aw, c'mon. That's semantics. You know as well as I do that some posters here present statistics as being "true value". Let's not get all wrapped up on how they phrase it.

[S5Dewey]

I like stats, but the more i dig into them and place some sort of mathematical scale on them, the more I see how closely tied they all are. For example, nearly every player in MLB will get hits between 20 and 30 percent of the time. And every team has nine people all hitting within this very tight range. Yet over the course of a full season, this can still lead to a difference of about 400 runs between the best and worst teams, which is an extreme chunk considering teams rarely score 1,000 runs in a season.

 

I also think it's funny how fans like to magnify thse soetimes faily small differences. There isn't much difference between a .290 hitter and a .230 hitter, but one is glorified and the other reviled. Or a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA and a pitcher with a 3.50 ERA. In a 180IP season, that's only a difference of 10 earned runs - that could be 2 bad innings - but we look at them so differently. Those 2 IP could be the difference between being the 2 or 3 guy on a team and being a Cy Young candidate...

 

It's nice to know that someone else thinks like I do. Maybe that's why I think stats are overrated.