notin

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

Would it be fair to say eyewitness testimony is less reliable than other forms of 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.)

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...

There's a big difference between resetting the tax penalties and acting like a small market team. In fact, they are opposite behaviors...

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...

Exactly. Bear in mind betting odds not only take outcome into account, but also betting action. Just because more people were betting on the Dodgers did not make them a better team, but it was something Vegas odds-makers had to consider so as not to go broke in the event they actually won...

The interim crew. It's not like the offices are empty...

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...

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...

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?

Try it now...

While true, none of those 2 month rentals were making $27-30 million. Of course, none also had draft pick compensation...

Of course, even DNA evidence is not without its flaws. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn

... 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.”

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?

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?

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...

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

Wasn’t he demoted to the minors for being apathetic?

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?

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

So you’re saying it does have to be an either/or situation? The Goantyeon 3 World Series titles in the past 10 years. Now they’re a horrible team with no farm and tons of bloated contracts. The Dodgers have dominated the NL West I recent years and been intwo of the last 3 World Series. They also have a strong farm that prevents them from filling the roster with expensive deadweight. Are you saying you thing the Giants are in the better situation?

The Dodgers might not have a ring but they are in the postseason every year..

I think Puig is an amazing talent. But multiple Dodgers including Kershaw and Scott Van Slyke once campaigned management to unload him...