Fire alex cora

[a700hitter]

Eye witness convictions are overthrown on DNA evidence every day.

An eyewitness is still the best evidence. As I said before, there are numerous ways to impeach or discredit an eyewitness, but once you are confronted with an eyewitness you have an uphill battle to discredit them. They can be discredited by showing that the witness made a deal with the prosecution or they have a personal bias against the defendant. The reliability of an eyewitness is especially reliable in a case when they know the defendant. It's pretty hard to discredit them in that case.

[a700hitter]

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?

It depends on the case. In a murder case, I'll take an eyewitness over any other evidence.

[notin]

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.

 

ACtually we seem to play the reputation game and make oput own determinations of when pressure happens.

 

ARod, for example, has a reputaton as a choker, despit eactually having a lot of post-season success. But no one really remembers him for that? And there is always the issue of deciding that just because it is the post-season, it's a high pressure clutch game. (Was his 3 for 5 in the 19-8 blowout in the 2004 ALCS really clutch?) Part of it was, lets' face it, ARod is not likable. But overall, the guy had an .822 OPS in the post season, which is not bad for a guy with 300 PA's spread out over 20 years.

 

Ortix was a post-season monster in his ABs. and is known for it. But also had a lot of post-season vanishing acts. We all remember nd sing songs about the 2004 ALCS and the 2013 World Series. But no one ever talks about the disaster Ortiz was in the 2008 and 2009 postseasons. and really, really, while he is remembered for the grand slam of Benoit in the 2008 ALCS that was just out of Torii Hunter's reach, mo one ever mentions that he only had one other hit in that entire series. But he was also Papi, and he was loved...

[a700hitter]

Don't confuse reliability with persuasiveness.

 

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

I am not confusing anything.

[notin]

It depends on the case. In a murder case, I'll take an eyewitness over any other evidence.

 

Even DNA?

 

Woud you prosecute a client if an eyewitness claimed he saw it but DNA exonetated him? (I'm trying to keep this in the realms of what evidence is trustworthy and not a decision made by legal ethics. If this is a straight up ethics question to you, just say so and in that case I don't need an answer.)

[a700hitter]

I can go on all day with some of the more argumentative members who love to challenge everything I say. Of course eyewitness testimony can be wrong. People also lie. That is why we have the constitutional right to confront our accusers. That being said, every lawyer loves to have eyewitness testimony on their side. To make a blanket statement that eyewitness testimony is unreliable is a ridiculous and untrue generalization. That is the last that I have to say on it, but feel free to argue about matters about which you know nothing besides baseball.

[S5Dewey]

ACtually we seem to play the reputation game and make oput own determinations of when pressure happens.

 

ARod, for example, has a reputaton as a choker, despit eactually having a lot of post-season success. But no one really remembers him for that? And there is always the issue of deciding that just because it is the post-season, it's a high pressure clutch game. (Was his 3 for 5 in the 19-8 blowout in the 2004 ALCS really clutch?) Part of it was, lets' face it, ARod is not likable. But overall, the guy had an .822 OPS in the post season, which is not bad for a guy with 300 PA's spread out over 20 years.

 

Ortix was a post-season monster in his ABs. and is known for it. But also had a lot of post-season vanishing acts. We all remember nd sing songs about the 2004 ALCS and the 2013 World Series. But no one ever talks about the disaster Ortiz was in the 2008 and 2009 postseasons. and really, really, while he is remembered for the grand slam of Benoit in the 2008 ALCS that was just out of Torii Hunter's reach, mo one ever mentions that he only had one other hit in that entire series. But he was also Papi, and he was loved...

 

Anecdotal evidence!

 

(But I will admit there's the possibility that the personality of those two has a lot to do with how their accomplishments are viewed). LOL

[a700hitter]

Anecdotal evidence!

 

(But I will admit there's the possibility that the personality of those two has a lot to do with how their accomplishments are viewed). LOL

We both have seen statheads look for some stat that supports their bias. It happens everyday. Even an introductory course on statistics will show you how to manipulate date. The argument that statheads don't employ bias is completely bogus.

[Bellhorn04]

Not true.

 

??? Which part isn't true?

[a700hitter]

??? Which part isn't true?

Generally not true... sort of like generalizing that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

[notin]

Generally not true... sort of like generalizing that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

 

Would it be fair to say eyewitness testimony is less reliable than other forms of evidence?

[a700hitter]

Would it be fair to say eyewitness testimony is less reliable than other forms of evidence?

No, that would also be an inaccurate generalization. Everything depends on the facts of the case. DNA can be very unreliable. For instance, showing that someone's DNA is on a knife or at a crime scene means very little if they owned the knife or the crime scene is their home. I am done with debating this on this forum. I was just pointing out that your statement was a very inaccurate generalization. Statements on message boards can be very unreliable.

[Slasher9]

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...

MLB players use those terms all the time. And they believe in them. Clutch, momentum, and chock do not disappear when a player goes to college....

[jad]

It's pointless to argue with a legal professional who refuses to admit into discussion the difference between "best" (meaning most useful in court or in demagoguery) and "accurate." This difference was recognized in ancient times, but the study of rhetoric (essentially training in legal or quasi-legal speech) always focused on 'persuasion', and thus a number of early philosophers rejected the entire field. There seems to me no substantive difference in the various arguments here--only on what the topic of discussion is.

[a700hitter]

It's pointless to argue with a legal professional who refuses to admit into discussion the difference between "best" (meaning most useful in court or in demagoguery) and "accurate." This difference was recognized in ancient times, but the study of rhetoric (essentially training in legal or quasi-legal speech) always focused on 'persuasion', and thus a number of early philosophers rejected the entire field. There seems to me no substantive difference in the various arguments here--only on what the topic of discussion is.

You are misrepresenting what I have said.

[harmony]

I can go on all day with some of the more argumentative members who love to challenge everything I say. Of course eyewitness testimony can be wrong. People also lie. That is why we have the constitutional right to confront our accusers. That being said, every lawyer loves to have eyewitness testimony on their side. To make a blanket statement that eyewitness testimony is unreliable is a ridiculous and untrue generalization. That is the last that I have to say on it, but feel free to argue about matters about which you know nothing besides baseball.

A career public defender concedes that he wants eyewitness testimony on his side despite its lack of reliability.

[a700hitter]

A career public defender concedes that he wants eyewitness testimony on his side despite its lack of reliability.

I have no idea what this babble means.

[notin]

We both have seen statheads look for some stat that supports their bias. It happens everyday. Even an introductory course on statistics will show you how to manipulate date. The argument that statheads don't employ bias is completely bogus.

 

Absolutely true. And sometimes very easy to accomplish...

[notin]

No, that would also be an inaccurate generalization. Everything depends on the facts of the case. DNA can be very unreliable. For instance, showing that someone's DNA is on a knife or at a crime scene means very little if they owned the knife or the crime scene is their home. I am done with debating this on this forum. I was just pointing out that your statement was a very inaccurate generalization. Statements on message boards can be very unreliable.

 

Oh DNA has flaws, too. I posted a link earlier to a famous and (I think) extremely funny case where DNA evidence lead police to think a serial killer was at work, when in reality the widesprad DNA belonged to a woman who packaged the cotton swabs they were using.

 

No one is getting on about perfection. And before we go too much further down this rabbit hole, this all started as a statement about the various biases and foibles of human memory that makes it very difficult for human beings to judge the human element in the game of baseball. I think that's actually one area where stats are actually better than people. When used properly of course...

[a700hitter]

Oh DNA has flaws, too. I posted a link earlier to a famous and (I think) extremely funny case where DNA evidence lead police to think a serial killer was at work, when in reality the widesprad DNA belonged to a woman who packaged the cotton swabs they were using.

 

No one is getting on about perfection. And before we go too much further down this rabbit hole, this all started as a statement about the various biases and foibles of human memory that makes it very difficult for human beings to judge the human element in the game of baseball. I think that's actually one area where stats are actually better than people. When used properly of course...

And let's not forget that it is people that use them.

[moonslav59]

No doubt- absolutely true.

 

Nobody claims otherwise.

 

Both sides are biased and both use their own types of evidence or supporting information to back their claims.

[a700hitter]

No doubt- absolutely true.

 

Nobody claims otherwise.

 

Both sides are biased and both use their own types of evidence or supporting information to back their claims.

Agreed. I would make one change to what you posted. I would say that both sides can be biased.

 

Claiming that one side is inherently biased while the other is purely objective is just not true.

Edited October 21, 2019 by a700hitter

[moonslav59]

Agreed.

 

It's probably just as easy to find data to support opposing claims as it is for two observers to have opposite evaluations after watching the exact same thing.

 

[a700hitter]

It's probably just as easy to find data to support opposing claims as it is for two observers to have opposite evaluations after watching the exact same thing.

 

I edited my post. See above. I am still in agreement with your post but made a slight qualification.

[notin]

Agreed. I would make one change to what you posted. I would say that both sides can be biased.

 

Claiming that one side is inherently biased while the other is purely objective is just not true.

 

EXcept that in the case of humans, many of the biases are just inherent to us as observers of anything. It's really hard to not fall victim to, say, the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Statistical biases are usually more the product of intention or incomplete research and are easier to avoid...

[a700hitter]

EXcept that in the case of humans, many of the biases are just inherent to us as observers of anything. It's really hard to not fall victim to, say, the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Statistical biases are usually more the product of intention or incomplete research and are easier to avoid...

The reason for the bias is really irrelevant, and if someone is biased, they may not be looking to avoid it. Spotting bias is what is relevant. Biased people are not trying to avoid their biases. If your argument is that it is more difficult to find stats to support bias, that may be true in certain instances and not true in other instances. The claimed higher moral ground for stats re: bias is just false.

[jad]

You are misrepresenting what I have said.

 

I certainly didn't intend to. Your argument about the effectiveness of eye-witness testimony is completely convincing. The question of whether eye-witness testimony is accurate is entirely different. (And I suppose this is close to but not identical to the stats vs. eye-test argument: what we see of a player's performance is pretty much convincing [at least to us]. We are annoyed when that is not reflected in stats.)

[notin]

And let's not forget that it is people that use them.

 

True

 

The biggest difference is that it can be easier to see that data refutes an initial hypothesis, whereas observations tend to lean towrds a confirmation bis or whatever one is appropriate...

[notin]

The reason for the bias is really irrelevant, and if someone is biased, they may not be looking to avoid it. Spotting bias is what is relevant. Biased people are not trying to avoid their biases. If your argument is that it is more difficult to find stats to support bias, that may be true in certain instances and not true in other instances. The claimed higher moral ground for stats re: bias is just false.

 

Except that there are just certain biases we have inherently. Our brains can just be wired flat out weird.

 

Dave Cameron, formerly of Fangraphs, once wrote that the eye test for defense often just turns into "I saw that guy make an error once." This is just a simple confirmation bias that we are all prone to. We go into watching a game thinking Player X cannot field well. He makes a mistake. And on that sample size of one play, the observer feels assured with his initial hypothesis. He can't help it. None of us can...

[moonslav59]

Here's a personal example: Jacoby Ellsbury.

 

When he first came up, I saw him make a few very nice plays. I knew he has speed, so I naturally thought he was a great defensive player. When he finally became the FT CF'er, a poster on that other site claimed he was not plus and had slow reaction times and took the wrong routes to balls hit to him. I started defending JE.

 

Then, I noticed his UZR/150 was negative, so I started watching every ball hit to him more closely. I did notice bad routes and slower breaks on the plays I was able to see on TV (not all that many). It's hard to know what my bias was before and after I started focusing on him more often.

 

To make the example even more complex, the next few years, I didn't notice the mistakes as much and went to check the numbers- sure enough, he had big plus numbers in 2010 and 2011 and was barely plus afterwards. The numbers seemed to support my observations that yes he was worse than I thought in 2009 but then did get better afterwards.

 

Was this just an example that supports my beliefs, so I use it, or not?