Cubs sign Soriano

[Drew Doughty]

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6824/11478590460608flmp2fj7wg6.jpg

[Butterscup1679666578]

stats = facts

 

I don't think so.

Your opinion has my curiosity piqued. I would truly be grateful if you expounded upon it so as to further enlighten me.

 

Only when an observation has been repeatedly validated can it be considered a fact. Even then I'd stick an asterisk by it. You also need compitent data takers, which is not a given in a "stat" for it to become a "fact."

 

A stat is very close to becoming a fact, but I don't think you can make that leap in confidence. It's a minor point, but since this thread has run amok, I thought I'd throw that in there.

 

I don't have a problem with stats. They're wonderful things, but you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from your data.

I understand where you are coming from in this split hair, but I would strongly disagree with you on the following basis:

 

The question is not whether Soriano hit a home run on any given day. The question is whether or not the governing body in question gave him credit for hitting a home run. The first question may be challenged on your basis above. The second cannot be reasonably questioned as it is documented and reported through many, many independent sources. The accumulation of baseball events is all done on this basis and therefore baseball statistics are actual facts.

 

You are saying that in one case, the data is true and therefore the stat must be a fact. You are reasoning from the specific to the general, but that is not a valid argument. The confidence level in HR data taking has nothing to do with defensive data confidence or any other baseball data confidence.

 

I believe Tantotiger even said (in your chat forums) that defensive stats are arguably not better than the scout's judgement b/c they are both involve human subjectivity. Obviously that data and the resulting stats are not facts as they can differ depending on who is taking them.

 

It's also another thing to say that a certain stat is a "fact" and then to draw conclusions from it. Those conclusions may or may not be true depending on how you use facts to justify an argument.

 

^^^ Yes, I know it's PHIL 101 junk. :lol:

 

You two should get a little more on topic. This is now about animal sex.

[Flames24Rulz]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v426/digital_engineer77/threaddirection.gif

 

There should be another arrow after the one turning to the right that leads all the way down. That's where this thread is at right now :wink:

[VanceJergins]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v426/digital_engineer77/threaddirection.gif

 

Dont crap on our party, Captain Bringdown.

 

Didnt you see we're now discussing Soriano with the body of a chick having intercourse with a small cat?

[Outshined_One]

stats = facts

 

I don't think so.

Your opinion has my curiosity piqued. I would truly be grateful if you expounded upon it so as to further enlighten me.

 

Only when an observation has been repeatedly validated can it be considered a fact. Even then I'd stick an asterisk by it. You also need compitent data takers, which is not a given in a "stat" for it to become a "fact."

 

A stat is very close to becoming a fact, but I don't think you can make that leap in confidence. It's a minor point, but since this thread has run amok, I thought I'd throw that in there.

 

I don't have a problem with stats. They're wonderful things, but you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from your data.

I understand where you are coming from in this split hair, but I would strongly disagree with you on the following basis:

 

The question is not whether Soriano hit a home run on any given day. The question is whether or not the governing body in question gave him credit for hitting a home run. The first question may be challenged on your basis above. The second cannot be reasonably questioned as it is documented and reported through many, many independent sources. The accumulation of baseball events is all done on this basis and therefore baseball statistics are actual facts.

 

You are saying that in one case, the data is true and therefore the stat must be a fact. You are reasoning from the specific to the general, but that is not a valid argument. The confidence level in HR data taking has nothing to do with defensive data confidence or any other baseball data confidence.

 

I believe Tantotiger even said (in your chat forums) that defensive stats are arguably not better than the scout's judgement b/c they are both involve human subjectivity. Obviously that data and the resulting stats are not facts as they can differ depending on who is taking them.

 

It's also another thing to say that a certain stat is a "fact" and then to draw conclusions from it. Those conclusions may or may not be true depending on how you use facts to justify an argument.

 

^^^ Yes, I know it's PHIL 101 junk. :lol:

 

Don't make me bring out causation analysis and David Hume...those days are long behind me and you're both tempting me. :cry:

[Guest]

stats = facts

 

I don't think so.

Your opinion has my curiosity piqued. I would truly be grateful if you expounded upon it so as to further enlighten me.

 

Only when an observation has been repeatedly validated can it be considered a fact. Even then I'd stick an asterisk by it. You also need compitent data takers, which is not a given in a "stat" for it to become a "fact."

 

A stat is very close to becoming a fact, but I don't think you can make that leap in confidence. It's a minor point, but since this thread has run amok, I thought I'd throw that in there.

 

I don't have a problem with stats. They're wonderful things, but you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from your data.

I understand where you are coming from in this split hair, but I would strongly disagree with you on the following basis:

 

The question is not whether Soriano hit a home run on any given day. The question is whether or not the governing body in question gave him credit for hitting a home run. The first question may be challenged on your basis above. The second cannot be reasonably questioned as it is documented and reported through many, many independent sources. The accumulation of baseball events is all done on this basis and therefore baseball statistics are actual facts.

 

You are saying that in one case, the data is true and therefore the stat must be a fact. You are reasoning from the specific to the general, but that is not a valid argument. The confidence level in HR data taking has nothing to do with defensive data confidence or any other baseball data confidence.

 

I believe Tantotiger even said (in your chat forums) that defensive stats are arguably not better than the scout's judgement b/c they are both involve human subjectivity. Obviously that data and the resulting stats are not facts as they can differ depending on who is taking them.

 

It's also another thing to say that a certain stat is a "fact" and then to draw conclusions from it. Those conclusions may or may not be true depending on how you use facts to justify an argument.

 

^^^ Yes, I know it's PHIL 101 junk. :lol:

Your argument would hold more true if anyone were debating defensive stats. However, the accumulation of individual offensive events in baseball is very well documented, widely witnessed and therefore can be regarded as proven fact.

 

So there. :P

[Jazz]

my god

i know there is something wrong with me when I am laughing harder at this thread than at the naked scene in Borat.

[sonicdethmonkey0]

here's a summary of the first 80 pages for you people not up to speed:

 

 

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/4189/fons2xj1.jpg

 

or vice versa, depending on your point of view.

Edited November 20, 2006 by sonicdethmonkey0

[CardsFanInChiTown]

 

Dont crap on our party, Captain Bringdown.

 

Didnt you see we're now discussing Soriano with the body of a chick having intercourse with a small cat?

 

Sorry, Sorry.... Back on topic...

 

 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/rjackson31/inyourface.gif

[Flames24Rulz]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v426/digital_engineer77/threaddirection.gif

 

Dont crap on our party, Captain Bringdown.

 

Didnt you see we're now discussing Soriano with the body of a chick having intercourse with a small cat?

 

Sorry, Sorry.... Back on topic...

 

 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/rjackson31/inyourface.gif

 

That got me to seriously LOL :lol:

[VanceJergins]

here's a summary of the first 80 pages for you people not up to speed:

 

 

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/4189/fons2xj1.jpg

 

or vice versa, depending on your point of view.

 

Friends forever?

[Guest]

Don't make me bring out causation analysis and David Hume...those days are long behind me and you're both tempting me. :cry:

Please. It's been 20 years since I've read Hume. Or Locke. Or any of those guys for that matter!

[A New Era]

So what's happened since the last time I posted, on page 82?

 

BTW Here's my current prefered line-up, with the way things are now, barring further changes. .

 

Soriano

Murton

Lee

Ramirez

Barret

Jones

Derosa

Izturis

P

 

Not a bad line-up at all. .

[VanceJergins]

 

Dont crap on our party, Captain Bringdown.

 

Didnt you see we're now discussing Soriano with the body of a chick having intercourse with a small cat?

 

Sorry, Sorry.... Back on topic...

 

 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/rjackson31/inyourface.gif

 

Holy crap, where the hell did you find that?

[ChiCubsFan]

my god

i know there is something wrong with me when I am laughing harder at this thread than at the naked scene in Borat.

 

My moustache still tastes of your testes!

[WrigleyField 22]

This thread makes me:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/snetsrak43/LOL.jpg

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So what's happened since the last time I posted, on page 82?

 

complete stream of consciousness from every poster involved in the thread.

[Outshined_One]

Sorry, Sorry.... Back on topic...

 

 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/rjackson31/inyourface.gif

 

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c77/Mr_G77/urf.jpg

[Mark_R]

I wonder what happens if I call Major Crunkage in Sonic's sig.

[Andy]

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/ndistops/fonsrb8.jpg Edited November 20, 2006 by Andy

[VanceJergins]

So what's happened since the last time I posted, on page 82?

 

BTW Here's my current prefered line-up, with the way things are now, barring further changes. .

 

Soriano

Murton

Lee

Ramirez

Barret

Jones

Derosa

Izturis

P

 

Not a bad line-up at all. .

 

You're talking 101 crap and we've moved on to grad school....catch up pleez

[RichHillIsABeast]

stats = facts

 

I don't think so.

Your opinion has my curiosity piqued. I would truly be grateful if you expounded upon it so as to further enlighten me.

 

Only when an observation has been repeatedly validated can it be considered a fact. Even then I'd stick an asterisk by it. You also need compitent data takers, which is not a given in a "stat" for it to become a "fact."

 

A stat is very close to becoming a fact, but I don't think you can make that leap in confidence. It's a minor point, but since this thread has run amok, I thought I'd throw that in there.

 

I don't have a problem with stats. They're wonderful things, but you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from your data.

I understand where you are coming from in this split hair, but I would strongly disagree with you on the following basis:

 

The question is not whether Soriano hit a home run on any given day. The question is whether or not the governing body in question gave him credit for hitting a home run. The first question may be challenged on your basis above. The second cannot be reasonably questioned as it is documented and reported through many, many independent sources. The accumulation of baseball events is all done on this basis and therefore baseball statistics are actual facts.

 

You are saying that in one case, the data is true and therefore the stat must be a fact. You are reasoning from the specific to the general, but that is not a valid argument. The confidence level in HR data taking has nothing to do with defensive data confidence or any other baseball data confidence.

 

I believe Tantotiger even said (in your chat forums) that defensive stats are arguably not better than the scout's judgement b/c they are both involve human subjectivity. Obviously that data and the resulting stats are not facts as they can differ depending on who is taking them.

 

It's also another thing to say that a certain stat is a "fact" and then to draw conclusions from it. Those conclusions may or may not be true depending on how you use facts to justify an argument.

 

^^^ Yes, I know it's PHIL 101 junk. :lol:

Your argument would hold more true if anyone were debating defensive stats. However, the accumulation of individual offensive events in baseball is very well documented, widely witnessed and therefore can be regarded as proven fact.

 

So there. :P

 

No. You can have a high confidence level in the data that approaches that of a fact.

 

SO THERE!! :lol:

 

Anyone see that pic of the cat with two dog heads growing out of its neck?

[ChiCubsFan]

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/ndistops/fonsrb8.jpg?t=1164004454

 

hhahaha

[CardsFanInChiTown]

 

Dont crap on our party, Captain Bringdown.

 

Didnt you see we're now discussing Soriano with the body of a chick having intercourse with a small cat?

 

Sorry, Sorry.... Back on topic...

 

 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/rjackson31/inyourface.gif

 

Holy crap, where the hell did you find that?

 

 

http://gatewayredbirds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3305&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=100

[nilodnayr]

Wow am I the oldest on here right now at 21??

Ummm...hello!

 

yea you're like ancient...

 

:wink:

 

Fred has you beat Tim, by just a bit.