Hey Cuse, Here are your numbers

[WilcoFan]

 

cuse had a completely unsubstantiated argument which he continually advocated to be true on the basis of nothing. attempting to shift the conversation to something along the lines of "hey, you're just rubbing it in his face" is a waste of time. the fact that imb did all this hard work gives cuse's thoughts more credence than they deserved. if he, or anyone else, wants to advocate a position as extreme as his, there needs to be some modicum of evidence behind it.

 

hopefully imb's rebuttal will serve as a reminder that it's important not to trust your eyes and to try to prove things if you want people to believe them. unfortunately, i'm sure it will only lead to people saying, "well, if i'm wrong, imb or someone will come in with evidence to show me."

 

 

I could not disagree more. I'm not sure who gets to be the arbiter of what exactly constitutes a "substantial" argument versus and unsubstantiated argument. Until IMB did the (exceptional) research, no one had provided a modicum of evidence that refuted his position, yet those same people relied on that tangential evidence to perpetually ridicule Cuse as if they had some empirical proof of the fallacy of his argument.

 

If anything, I hope IMB's rebuttal will serve as a reminder that in order to refute a hypothesis it is important to provide relevant statistical evidence, and once that is done, reasonable people will admit they are wrong. Providing tangential (borderline irrelevant) statistical evidence, claiming it disproves the original argument (when, in fact, it does nothing), and coupling it with ridicule and sarcasm will only entrench the both the original theorist and his opposition in orthodoxy (based upon the emotional reaction to the ridicule), and it will be virtually impossible to reach a reasonable level of truth in the matter being discussed.

 

To put it simply: his theory was wrong. The theory had as much statistical basis as did the attempts to refute his theory. Once IMB did the appropriate research, the matter was solved. End of story.

[Mephistopheles]

cuse had a completely unsubstantiated argument which he continually advocated to be true on the basis of nothing. attempting to shift the conversation to something along the lines of "hey, you're just rubbing it in his face" is a waste of time. the fact that imb did all this hard work gives cuse's thoughts more credence than they deserved. if he, or anyone else, wants to advocate a position as extreme as his, there needs to be some modicum of evidence behind it.

 

hopefully imb's rebuttal will serve as a reminder that it's important not to trust your eyes and to try to prove things if you want people to believe them. unfortunately, i'm sure it will only lead to people saying, "well, if i'm wrong, imb or someone will come in with evidence to show me."

 

well, if i'm wrong, imb or someone will come in with evidence to show me.

[snoodmonger]

 

cuse had a completely unsubstantiated argument which he continually advocated to be true on the basis of nothing. attempting to shift the conversation to something along the lines of "hey, you're just rubbing it in his face" is a waste of time. the fact that imb did all this hard work gives cuse's thoughts more credence than they deserved. if he, or anyone else, wants to advocate a position as extreme as his, there needs to be some modicum of evidence behind it.

 

hopefully imb's rebuttal will serve as a reminder that it's important not to trust your eyes and to try to prove things if you want people to believe them. unfortunately, i'm sure it will only lead to people saying, "well, if i'm wrong, imb or someone will come in with evidence to show me."

 

 

I could not disagree more. I'm not sure who gets to be the arbiter of what exactly constitutes a "substantial" argument versus and unsubstantiated argument. Until IMB did the (exceptional) research, no one had provided a modicum of evidence that refuted his position, yet those same people relied on that tangential evidence to perpetually ridicule Cuse as if they had some empirical proof of the fallacy of his argument.

 

If anything, I hope IMB's rebuttal will serve as a reminder that in order to refute a hypothesis it is important to provide relevant statistical evidence, and once that is done, reasonable people will admit they are wrong. Providing tangential (borderline irrelevant) statistical evidence, claiming it disproves the original argument (when, in fact, it does nothing), and coupling it with ridicule and sarcasm will only entrench the both the original theorist and his opposition in orthodoxy (based upon the emotional reaction to the ridicule), and it will be virtually impossible to reach a reasonable level of truth in the matter being discussed.

 

To put it simply: his theory was wrong. The theory had as much statistical basis as did the attempts to refute his theory. Once IMB did the appropriate research, the matter was solved. End of story.

 

 

Personally, if I'm going to accept an observational theory like Cuse's, a couple of prerequisites need to be met. The theorist needs to have studied the subject intensively. In this case, I mean a close, repeated study of ALL of Mark Prior's outings. Observational theories based on one viewing hold no credibility anywhere. Diane Fossey didn't casually watch gorillas for a few hours and then formulate an opinion. She lived with them. The theorist should also know the subject personally in a case like this. There's no reason to think Cuse has a deeper understanding of Mark Prior than anyone else here who watches the Cubs religiously. Finally, the theorist should also be credentialed in some way to analyze someone's psyche. Personality assessments and behavioral analysis are learned skills. Not everyone is qualified to make them.

 

To my knowledge, Cuse didn't meet any of these prerequisites. (Perhaps he is a behavioral psychologist; I don't know.) Instead, his theory was based on observations, most of them probably faded with time. They were probably also emotionally colored, given his feelings on the subjects (Prior, the Cubs).

 

Like it or not, not every hypothesis is created equally. Nor should every theory be given equal time in its study. Cuse's argument is just one example of a flimsy hypothesis that lacked the substance to warrant serious consideration. If anyone should have been forced to support it/refute it, it should have been Cuse. That's how it works in science, too. Legitimate researchers aren't chasing the sasquatch because they know the likelihood of its existence is microscopic. So that leaves the "believers" in the position to back it up or sound like fools.

[CuseCubFan69]

Honestly, who cares who's right as long as the information was found and we have an answer. IMB did a wonderful job and dug up a lot of information for us to look at which I appreciate. I don't understand why being the one that's right is more important than finding the right answer.

[WilcoFan]

Honestly, who cares who's right as long as the information was found and we have an answer. IMB did a wonderful job and dug up a lot of information for us to look at which I appreciate. I don't understand why being the one that's right is more important than finding the right answer.

 

This is all I'm saying...

[WilcoFan]

 

cuse had a completely unsubstantiated argument which he continually advocated to be true on the basis of nothing. attempting to shift the conversation to something along the lines of "hey, you're just rubbing it in his face" is a waste of time. the fact that imb did all this hard work gives cuse's thoughts more credence than they deserved. if he, or anyone else, wants to advocate a position as extreme as his, there needs to be some modicum of evidence behind it.

 

hopefully imb's rebuttal will serve as a reminder that it's important not to trust your eyes and to try to prove things if you want people to believe them. unfortunately, i'm sure it will only lead to people saying, "well, if i'm wrong, imb or someone will come in with evidence to show me."

 

 

I could not disagree more. I'm not sure who gets to be the arbiter of what exactly constitutes a "substantial" argument versus and unsubstantiated argument. Until IMB did the (exceptional) research, no one had provided a modicum of evidence that refuted his position, yet those same people relied on that tangential evidence to perpetually ridicule Cuse as if they had some empirical proof of the fallacy of his argument.

 

If anything, I hope IMB's rebuttal will serve as a reminder that in order to refute a hypothesis it is important to provide relevant statistical evidence, and once that is done, reasonable people will admit they are wrong. Providing tangential (borderline irrelevant) statistical evidence, claiming it disproves the original argument (when, in fact, it does nothing), and coupling it with ridicule and sarcasm will only entrench the both the original theorist and his opposition in orthodoxy (based upon the emotional reaction to the ridicule), and it will be virtually impossible to reach a reasonable level of truth in the matter being discussed.

 

To put it simply: his theory was wrong. The theory had as much statistical basis as did the attempts to refute his theory. Once IMB did the appropriate research, the matter was solved. End of story.

 

 

Personally, if I'm going to accept an observational theory like Cuse's, a couple of prerequisites need to be met. The theorist needs to have studied the subject intensively. In this case, I mean a close, repeated study of ALL of Mark Prior's outings. Observational theories based on one viewing hold no credibility anywhere. Diane Fossey didn't casually watch gorillas for a few hours and then formulate an opinion. She lived with them. The theorist should also know the subject personally in a case like this. There's no reason to think Cuse has a deeper understanding of Mark Prior than anyone else here who watches the Cubs religiously. Finally, the theorist should also be credentialed in some way to analyze someone's psyche. Personality assessments and behavioral analysis are learned skills. Not everyone is qualified to make them.

 

To my knowledge, Cuse didn't meet any of these prerequisites. (Perhaps he is a behavioral psychologist; I don't know.) Instead, his theory was based on observations, most of them probably faded with time. They were probably also emotionally colored, given his feelings on the subjects (Prior, the Cubs).

 

Like it or not, not every hypothesis is created equally. Nor should every theory be given equal time in its study. Cuse's argument is just one example of a flimsy hypothesis that lacked the substance to warrant serious consideration. If anyone should have been forced to support it/refute it, it should have been Cuse. That's how it works in science, too. Legitimate researchers aren't chasing the sasquatch because they know the likelihood of its existence is microscopic. So that leaves the "believers" in the position to back it up or sound like fools.

 

Legitimate researchers aren't chasing the sasquatch because there is substantial evidence that it doesn't exist. They don't simply say "that's baseless," and move on. A group of scientists over time proved it to be 99% unlikely. In the case of this discussion, no one bothered to prove anything.

 

While I can accept the concept that all hypotheses aren't created equally, I don't think arguments backed by weak, tangential statistics should be license to ridicule someone and consider their opinion worthless. As colored as his thoughts about Prior may have been, the vitriol connected with the opposing opinions clearly was as colored by pro-Prior sentiment. Furthermore, that opinion was caked in irrelevant stats which were used to sarcastically attack his sentiment, when they were no more valid simply because a quantifiable number (which didn't apply to the situation) was applied.

 

I guess my problem was more with the misuse of statistics to gain some sort of conversational high ground in an attempt to ridicule someone into concession. As someone who believes wholeheartedly in stats and is annoyed by those who espouse the "grinder" theories of baseball, it bugs me when people conform to the ridiculous stereotypes about SABR people (i.e. "they're all just number crunchers who think they're smarter than everyone and don't ever provide any real answers"). I don't think that stereotype is true for most people who believe in statistics, but when the attempt is made to shut someone up who has a dissenting opinion simply because it doesn't conform to the pre-existing biases of others, who don't actually take the time to prove him wrong and find the truth, its a dangerous thing.

 

As Cuse said earlier, truth is what matters, and truth was found. There's no reason for those whose biases were proven correct to take a bow just because someone else did the work for them. The answer is the most important thing.

 

And with that said, I'm going to leave this topic alone.

[abuck1220]

Until IMB did the (exceptional) research, no one had provided a modicum of evidence that refuted his position, yet those same people relied on that tangential evidence to perpetually ridicule Cuse as if they had some empirical proof of the fallacy of his argument.

 

 

actually, within about five minutes i posted prior's batting average against with runners on base vs. with the bases empty. since cuse's original comment was the prior faded after giving up baserunners, i'd say that refuted his position (that's not to take away from imb's great work, by the way).

 

but, whatever, cuse = isaac newton, and i think the world's a better place now.

[CubinNY]

Until IMB did the (exceptional) research, no one had provided a modicum of evidence that refuted his position, yet those same people relied on that tangential evidence to perpetually ridicule Cuse as if they had some empirical proof of the fallacy of his argument.

Some beliefs are so ridiculous that they can be refuted without numbers.

 

Empirical, BTW means objective observation, two things which Cuse cannot be accused of when it comes to Prior.

[CuseCubFan69]

Until IMB did the (exceptional) research, no one had provided a modicum of evidence that refuted his position, yet those same people relied on that tangential evidence to perpetually ridicule Cuse as if they had some empirical proof of the fallacy of his argument.

 

 

actually, within about five minutes i posted prior's batting average against with runners on base vs. with the bases empty. since cuse's original comment was the prior faded after giving up baserunners, i'd say that refuted his position (that's not to take away from imb's great work, by the way).

 

but, whatever, cuse = isaac newton, and i think the world's a better place now.

 

No, I said when Prior was getting hit hard he struggled with failure. I never said one hit or when runners were on base.

[abuck1220]

close enough.

[CuseCubFan69]

close enough.

 

Not really.

[WilcoFan]

close enough.

 

This type of response proves the point of my above statement so much better than the 3 paragraphs I wrote.

[abuck1220]

i was right, wasn't i?

[abuck1220]

close enough.

 

Not really.

 

it was a lot more proof than you had to support your claim.

[CuseCubFan69]

close enough.

 

Not really.

 

it was a lot more proof than you had to support your claim.

 

Not really.

[abuck1220]

close enough.

 

Not really.

 

it was a lot more proof than you had to support your claim.

 

Not really.

 

yes, really. you didn't have anything besides "i'm a high school baseball coach."

 

not that it really matters who had more support since, in the end, i was right.

[CuseCubFan69]

close enough.

 

Not really.

 

it was a lot more proof than you had to support your claim.

 

Not really.

 

yes, really. you didn't have anything besides "i'm a high school baseball coach."

 

not that it really matters who had more support since, in the end, i was right.

 

No, IMB was right. He said in one post what you couldn't in 15-25.

[Geech]

No, IMB was right. He said in one post what you couldn't in 15-25.

 

Ahahahahahaha!

[abuck1220]

close enough.

 

Not really.

 

it was a lot more proof than you had to support your claim.

 

Not really.

 

yes, really. you didn't have anything besides "i'm a high school baseball coach."

 

not that it really matters who had more support since, in the end, i was right.

 

No, IMB was right. He said in one post what you couldn't in 15-25.

 

i said you were wrong. you were wrong. therefore, i was right.

 

imb did show his work, however.

[CuseCubFan69]

close enough.

 

Not really.

 

it was a lot more proof than you had to support your claim.

 

Not really.

 

yes, really. you didn't have anything besides "i'm a high school baseball coach."

 

not that it really matters who had more support since, in the end, i was right.

 

No, IMB was right. He said in one post what you couldn't in 15-25.

 

i said you were wrong. you were wrong. therefore, i was right.

 

imb did show his work, however.

 

You keep thinking that.

[Geech]

i said you were wrong. you were wrong. therefore, i was right.

 

imb did show his work, however.

 

You keep thinking that.

 

So, is it your position after all this that you were, in fact, not wrong?

[CuseCubFan69]

i said you were wrong. you were wrong. therefore, i was right.

 

imb did show his work, however.

 

You keep thinking that.

 

So, is it your position after all this that you were, in fact, not wrong?

 

My position is that IMB did all his leg work.

[Geech]

My position is that IMB did all his leg work.

 

Well, that's not really the point.

 

I would say, that to an awful lot of people posting here that legwork should not have been necessary. A lot of people considered your position ridiculous, and they were all correct. Maybe they were correct by coincidence, or 'for the wrong reasons' or something, but they were right.

[abuck1220]

i said you were wrong. you were wrong. therefore, i was right.

 

imb did show his work, however.

 

You keep thinking that.

 

So, is it your position after all this that you were, in fact, not wrong?

 

My position is that IMB did all his leg work.

 

all right, i won't candy coat this for you.

 

your position was so ridiculous, baseless and obviously false that i knew i didn't NEED to do any legwork. as nearly everyone in that thread pointed out, your claim was so absurd that i wasn't going to waste my time trying to prove you wrong (though i throughly enjoyed seeing you proven wrong by imb's work).

 

if i said to you, "derrek lee hits .750 against pitchers with a U in their name," would you sit there and go through 10 years worth of game logs to try and prove me wrong?

[WilcoFan]

close enough.

 

Not really.

 

it was a lot more proof than you had to support your claim.

 

Not really.

 

yes, really. you didn't have anything besides "i'm a high school baseball coach."

 

not that it really matters who had more support since, in the end, i was right.

 

No, IMB was right. He said in one post what you couldn't in 15-25.

 

i said you were wrong. you were wrong. therefore, i was right.

 

imb did show his work, however.

 

Man, this reminds me of a movie...

 

Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream", you'd say …?

Joey: "No, chocolate is."

Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?

Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.

Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?

Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.

Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.

Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.

Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.

Joey: But … you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.

Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right.

Joey: But you still didn't convince me.

Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.