jad

That was astounding. But there are so many jaw-dropping defensive plays, I realize it is difficult to know which one I am talking about.

Totally agree, although tonight, we can't count on SL catching the damn thing.

Is irony so hard to grasp?

Because strike-outs, we're told, are BAD. Therefore Miley has fallen right into the RS trap.

K's please!

Is that what you meant by 3 outs with no Ks? (I think I'd feel safer with the K's!)

Thanks. I thought I knew most logical fallacies and related socio-psychological principles. Alas, it explains far too much of the political situation today than I would wish!

Did you read the depressing article in The New Yorker, reviewing studies on the relation of evidence to one's opinions? The studies all set up experiments where the subjects were asked to form an opinion (or choose between alternatives) of some artificial problem. They were then told OOPS, that was a mistake: here's what the situation really is. Or perhaps they were presented then with hard evidence that went against their initial opinions. What the researchers found consistently was that when subjects were presented with evidence that absolutely contradicted their initial choice or opinions, far from modifying those views, they became even MORE ADAMANT about them.

It's the "lot of moving parts" that bothers me. Whenever I have tried to follow a detailed explanation, I always run into areas that involve 'guesswork,' 'the eye test' (or variants), unstated assumptions, various forms of arbitrariness. (e.g., as in BA, which of course, I accept for what it is; what could be more idiotic statistically than failing to credit a bunter for a sacrifice if you think he was trying to get a hit; it would be like refusing to grant an S to the guy who hits a fly ball because you determined that he was actually trying to hit a home run). I'm not questioning the good faith of the statisticians (although I probably should, since some of them are doubtless working for agents); I'm just questioning their abilities to produce a system that doesn't incorporate the same flaws much simpler systems have.

No I wouldn't wonder or worry about the the fact that "tight range encompassed such a wide variety of outcomes." This is exactly how grading systems work. BA is useful because it's easily intelligible, has a long tradition, and doesn't require an advanced degree in statistics to understand. Plus, we can bring to it other factors: we all know, for example, that Ted WIlliams hit more home runs than Pete Runnels, even though their BA was sometimes similar; no proponent of BA argues that Runnels was a better hitter, even when his average was higher. The problem I have with OPS was nicely described above; the problem I have w/ various "WARs" is that I have never been given an explanation IN PLAIN LANGUAGE that is convincing or even intelligible. Since I'm a fan, not a GM, (just as I am a user of rear-end differential gears rather than a designer of them--and btw, I have been given plain language descriptions of those!), I don't have much interest in the kinds of statistical analysis that cannot be explained to me.

Ha. Me too. That's why we have all this time on our hands to read sports boards.

Don't be ridiculous. Small sample size. He just ran into one ... or two or so. His footwork sucks. Wait til the league gets a book on him. He's a bad fit. ... Package him up Devers and everyone of note at Pawtucket and trade him for a broken-down middle reliever.

Nuanced and tortuous as this debate has grown to be, I believe you may (I think possibly) perhaps be missing an abstruse layer of irony in N's assertions.

The logical leap from "K's are over-rated" to "K's are irrelevant" is a tad breath-taking.

Ah, right. I was thinking of the no hitter.

All I seem to recall is that it was a 20K complete game for Clemens (not exactly your question). And didn't Bill Monbouquette (sp?) have a 20K game early in the 60s?

Yeah, Pedro, Clemens, Nolan Ryan, Koufax--they all had the same problem. And hell, if Mickey Owen had just insisted on a hittable pitch right down the middle rather than a third strike, he would have walked away with a World Series ring in 1941! But NOOOOOO.

Yeah, 9 Ks in 4 innings is just asking for trouble. Bench him until he learns to pitch.

Saw them in that fine stadium in ... must have been 1960. I recall my uncle explaining in detail how minor league contracts worked, not one word of which I have retained.

By remembering the last six or seven decades, perhaps?

I don't know. I was a great fan of his, but in all the games I saw, Wilt outplayed him. After all, in basketball and in life itself, 20,000 scores is hard to beat.

"Forcing a rule change" (RC is of course still in AAA and the RS are still paying his salary under the old rules) is completely different from "disregarding a rule that is in place and whose intent and implications are obvious to everyone."

An obvious violation of the CBA. I believe this is specifically addressed, but I'm not up for reading the 250pp of the agreement to find it. I'm sure there are other obvious violations that aren't specifically addressed either; I can't find anywhere a clause claiming a team can't pay a player in chimpanzees rather than dollars, so maybe there's a loophole there as well.

I don't know what 'they' refers to. Nor who the target is. So I'll just say sternly that hyperbole, special pleading, begging the question and all such rhetorical and logical sleights-of-hand are (as we all know) absolutely forbidden on sports boards.

Ha! Fred Lynn, on his worst day, was not a poor man's JBJ on his best.