a700hitter
-
Posts
70,225 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by a700hitter
-
That rarely happens.
-
I can agree with that.
-
You are bathing in bias, but can't see it.
-
I think that 95% of what is discussed on this board is opinion that is full of bias whether stats are relied upon or not. It’s opinion. People make the mistake of believing that there is a right or wrong opinions. That’s just horseshit. I’ll go no further than to say that there are strong arguments and weak arguments and everything in between. Asserting Right and wrong on a message board is folly.
-
And there are people who can evaluate without bias without needing to be confronted with stats. And then there are those who use stats in a biased way, including every player’s agent. Moon said it well before, and he will correct me if I paraphrase inaccurately, neither side has a monopoly on bias and neither side is less likely to be biased .
-
Judging just from TV isn't optimal. You see a lot more at the games. I have gone to games and had people who had watched on TV tell me about a great catch, but i knew that the player initially broke the wrong way. I don't think the home viewer was employing bias. He just didn't see on TV what I saw in person.
-
And they are wired just as weird when compiling or interpreting data.
-
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.
-
I edited my post. See above. I am still in agreement with your post but made a slight qualification.
-
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.
-
And let's not forget that it is people that use them.
-
I have no idea what this babble means.
-
You are misrepresenting what I have said.
-
When this new stadium opened, the ticket prices were so high that they priced out most of the scum element. Apparently, wages have caught up with ticket prices, and the scummy Yankee fans are back.
-
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.
-
Generally not true... sort of like generalizing that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
-
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.
-
Spud is back!
-
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.
-
I am not confusing anything.
-
It depends on the case. In a murder case, I'll take an eyewitness over any other evidence.
-
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.
-
Not true.
-
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.
-
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.
