[XZero771679666304]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

 

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later.

 

Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

 

If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't.

 

There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured.

 

The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent.

 

LOL.

 

And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this.

 

And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue.

 

And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true.

 

Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable.

 

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates

 

That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer.

[RynoRules]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

 

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later.

 

Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

 

Thank you. I hope the whole bd. takes notice of that last statement.

 

And I should clarify what I meant by "cannot be measured". I meat that it cannot be measured in the manner that OBP is. Its not that obvious. I am not entirely sure how to define it myself - I have some idea, but its not perfect. Its rather like obsenity - I know it when I see it. :wink:

Edited November 2, 2005 by RynoRules

[CubinNY]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

 

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later.

 

Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

 

If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't.

 

There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured.

 

The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent.

 

LOL.

 

And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this.

 

And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue.

 

And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true.

 

Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable.

 

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates

 

That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer.

 

So you cannot back up your statement with facts. That's kind of what I thought.

 

You and Socrates are quite the pair of deep thinkers.

[CubfaninCA]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

How do you measure good parents then? Kid's SAT scores?

 

I'll take the other side on that one. First you have to define "good parents". And while you are at it, also give us a definition of "good team chemistry". I will go as far as to say it is very difficult to measure what hasn't been defined.

 

Good parents have a good kid or kids...

 

Of course, it all depends on what's considered "good" though.

 

My whole point is that math formulas aren't the answer to everything. Just cause someone can't break down chemistry into something like obp or ops doesn't mean it should be disregarded and scoffed at.

[XZero771679666304]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

 

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later.

 

Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

"It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later."

 

Could you enlighten me? Name three physical things that "people" said cannot be measured.

 

-----------------

 

If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't.

 

There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured.

 

The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent.

 

You should read Einstein. Try taking an advanced physics class. Photons, quarks, black holes etc. etc. All things we couldn't or cannot accurately measure that are there.

 

And who says something cannot be measured because we cannot measure it, as if we understand the nature of everything. Ignorant.

 

Again, I am not championing blind faith, but the position that we are not in a position to measure or quantify eveything that exists.

[RynoRules]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

How do you measure good parents then? Kid's SAT scores?

 

I'll take the other side on that one. First you have to define "good parents". And while you are at it, also give us a definition of "good team chemistry". I will go as far as to say it is very difficult to measure what hasn't been defined.

 

Good parents have a good kid or kids...

 

Of course, it all depends on what's considered "good" though.

 

My whole point is that math formulas aren't the answer to everything. Just cause someone can't break down chemistry into something like obp or ops doesn't mean it should be disregarded and scoffed at.

 

Again: =D>

 

It should also be noted that to ignore and scoff at the so-called intangibles is highly provincial.

[XZero771679666304]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

 

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later.

 

Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

 

If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't.

 

There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured.

 

The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent.

 

LOL.

 

And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this.

 

And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue.

 

And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true.

 

Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable.

 

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates

 

That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer.

 

So you cannot back up your statement with facts. That's kind of what I thought.

 

You and Socrates are quite the pair of deep thinkers.

 

And Einstein, Newton, Neils Bohr, and on down the line of physiscists and hard scientists.

 

As much as you are knowledgeable. You cannot disprove something just because you cannot measure it. You have no more fact to back up your position than I do.

[CubinNY]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

 

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later.

 

Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

 

If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't.

 

There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured.

 

The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent.

 

LOL.

 

And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this.

 

And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue.

 

And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true.

 

Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable.

 

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates

 

That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer.

 

So you cannot back up your statement with facts. That's kind of what I thought.

 

You and Socrates are quite the pair of deep thinkers.

 

And Einstein, Newton, Neil Bohr, and on down the line of physiscists and hard scientists.

 

As much as you are knowledgeable. You cannot disprove something just because you cannot measure it. You have no more fact to back up your position than I do.

 

Whatever, I suggest you ask a physics professor what they think about things that by definition CANNOT BE MEASURED. He or she will laugh you out of the room.

 

It is not about disproving anything it is about proving something. I don't need to disprove that chemistry exista, that is a logical impossiblity. The burden of proof is on those that say it does exist. Just becuase someone says it is so does not make it so.

 

In my field (science) we have a saying, "In God we trust. All others must have data."

[XZero771679666304]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

 

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later.

 

Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

 

If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't.

 

There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured.

 

The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent.

 

LOL.

 

And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this.

 

And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue.

 

And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true.

 

Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable.

 

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates

 

That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer.

 

So you cannot back up your statement with facts. That's kind of what I thought.

 

You and Socrates are quite the pair of deep thinkers.

 

And Einstein, Newton, Neil Bohr, and on down the line of physiscists and hard scientists.

 

As much as you are knowledgeable. You cannot disprove something just because you cannot measure it. You have no more fact to back up your position than I do.

 

Whatever, I suggest you ask a physics professor what they think about things that by definition CANNOT BE MEASURED. He or she will laugh you out of the room.

 

It is not about disproving anything it is about proving something. I don't need to disprove that chemistry does not exist, that is a logical impossiblity. The burden of proof is on those that say it does exist. Just becuase someone says it is so does not make it so.

 

In my field (science) we have a saying, "In God we trust. All others must have data."

 

Funny, my physics professor often says the same things I have been, and he is a very, very accomplished scientist.

 

I am not arguing chemistry. I don't really care.

 

What I am arguing with is you statement that if something cannot be measured, it doesn't exist. That is patently riduiculous, and the very fact that we are always discovering new ways to measure things that were previously thought immeasurable is a testament to that. If we learn a way to measure something today we couldn't previously, does that mean it did't exist yesterday?

 

That is in essence what you are saying.

 

Saying that you can classify something as "immeasurable" is a notion based on the idea that we have a comprehensive knowledge of how to measure all things, and that is false.

 

I'll tell you what; I'll ask my physics professor tonight in class the very question you proposed I ask. And I'll bet you I don't get laughed out of the room.

[imb]

Why dont bad teams ever have good chemistry?

[XZero771679666304]

Why dont bad teams ever have good chemistry?

 

Many do. They just suck too much for it to matter.

[jjgman21]

can't we just sticky this thread so it doesn't have to appear over and over and over?

[CubfaninCA]

Why dont bad teams ever have good chemistry?

 

Some do, which may explain why they won 65 games instead of 57 games. They just didn't have the talent.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Why dont bad teams ever have good chemistry?

 

Because losing sucks.

[RynoRules]

I pretty much feel the same as X-Zero. Its not that I care so much about the concept of team chemistry. I care about this misguided notion that because something can't be quantified into hard data that it must not exist. I strongly disagree, whether the topic is baseball or the rest of life.

[scs_paradise]

I pretty much feel the same as X-Zero. Its not that I care so much about the concept of team chemistry. I care about this misguided notion that because something can't be quantified into hard data that it must not exist. I strongly disagree, whether the topic is baseball or the rest of life.

 

seconded, which is possibly why I'm so wary of all the posters who want to define every offseason pickup as a function of data and stats.

[MPrior]

It is not about disproving anything it is about proving something. I don't need to disprove that chemistry exista, that is a logical impossiblity. The burden of proof is on those that say it does exist. Just becuase someone says it is so does not make it so.

 

In my field (science) we have a saying, "In God we trust. All others must have data."

 

Now, I'm pretty skeptical of chemistry's value in baseball, but I pretty strongly believe in what Xzero is saying. And I'd just like to point out a pretty blatant contradiction in your statement. Refer to my two bolded sections there.

 

Have you ever heard of the scientific method? It more or less boils down to the fact that nothing can be proved. Things can only be disproved. In essence, science (your ostensible field) is the exact opposite of what you said: It's not about proving anything. It's about disproving something. Who knew (before Einstein) that Newtonian physics were more or less inaccurate? No one. But Einstein disproved them. Of course, we still use them, because they're a pretty damn good approximation, especially if we're dealing with things that are on earth and not traveling anywhere close to the speed of light. But the point is, even our most trusted beliefs can be proved wrong.

 

Back to chemistry. I'm not sure than anything regarding chemistry has been proved or disproved. But I am pretty sure that the notion that chemistry is a necessary factor to win ballgames has been disproved (see the Oakland A's). I am also pretty sure, if I am to believe this statement that losing clubs do occasionally have chemistry (although I've never heard of one), that it is also not a sufficient factor to win ballgames. So having "chemistry" is neither necessary nor sufficient to win. Do you want to know what is sufficient to win a lot of ballgames?

 

Team OBP. No, not necessary (see the White Sox, Astros of this year). But sufficient (see the Red Sox, Yankees, Oakland A's of the past several years).

 

Lights out pitching across the board. Not necessary (the Yankees and Red Sox won a lot of games this year without it). But sufficient (see the Angels, Astros, and White Sox).

 

Chemistry? Regardless of whether or not it has an effect on winning, it is, at best, a tertiary issue (not to mention that designing a team to have chemistry is impossibly hard to do, since it's so hard to define; for example, this year's Cubs probably had the worst chemisty of a Cubs team for the last few years, but they were designed to have good chemistry, or so some seem to believe).

[UBlink]

Maybe we can try to measure chemistry. Prior to next season, let those who can subjectively recognize team chemistry rank or give a score for all the teams. Then, after the season, we can analyze W-L records using all the "tangible" evidence (prior years' OBP, ERA, OPS, history of injury, whatever) that was available before the season without the chemistry score and then see if adding chemistry improves the analysis.

 

It would be better if we had something we could measure (again, prior to the season) that correlates with chemistry, but I'll be happy to settle for the expert judgement of those intuitive enough to recognize it, as long as they do it before the season.

 

But we can't come along after the season and say, wow, that team succeeded above what the tangible measures would have predicted - they must have had good chemistry.

[Backtobanks]

Obviously, all things being equal, you opt for good clubhouse guys. That being said, you still take a jerk who can hit .300 with 40 HR over a good clubhouse guy who hits .250 with 14 HR.

[Careless]

Just heard some tidbits on the score and Hendry was talking about the signing and he had to say that he signe dhim because Rusch is a very good clubhouse guy and also, there were nto many options available out there that could do his role. What a bunch of crock. So let's go out there and sign the best cluibhouse guys..World Series here we come. What a crock.

 

Has he learned nothing from last off season? Chemistry is such overrated garbage.

 

Tell the 05 White Sox, 04 Red Sox, 03 Marlins, 02 Angels and the 96-2000 Yankees that.

 

why? do you know for a fact that they had great 'chemistry'?

 

The empirical evidence suggests they got along well, which helped their performance as a team.

 

um...sure.

 

and this year's cub team supposedly got along great (or so empirical evidence suggests), and they sucked big time.

 

They didn't have the talent to compliment the camaraderie.

 

great self-sealing argument.

(pst, ask him if he knows what "empirical" actually means)

[CubfaninCA]

Just heard some tidbits on the score and Hendry was talking about the signing and he had to say that he signe dhim because Rusch is a very good clubhouse guy and also, there were nto many options available out there that could do his role. What a bunch of crock. So let's go out there and sign the best cluibhouse guys..World Series here we come. What a crock.

 

Has he learned nothing from last off season? Chemistry is such overrated garbage.

 

Tell the 05 White Sox, 04 Red Sox, 03 Marlins, 02 Angels and the 96-2000 Yankees that.

 

why? do you know for a fact that they had great 'chemistry'?

 

The empirical evidence suggests they got along well, which helped their performance as a team.

 

um...sure.

 

and this year's cub team supposedly got along great (or so empirical evidence suggests), and they sucked big time.

 

They didn't have the talent to compliment the camaraderie.

 

great self-sealing argument.

(pst, ask him if he knows what "empirical" actually means)

 

yes. i have an mpa.

[imb]

so whats the point? if talent outweighs chemistry, why not just assemble the most talented group of players possible? If good chemistry cant outweight mediocre talent, who cares?

[CubinNY]

Have you ever heard of the scientific method? It more or less boils down to the fact that nothing can be proved.

 

 

I suppose I could ask you the same question, but I will try not to insult your intelligence. Be that as it may, you are absolutely unequivally and tottally incorrect.

 

Part of the scientific method includes the practice of objective observation and measurement. For example, some scientist a long, long time ago in a country far, far away discovered that water boils at 100 degrees C or 210 degrees F at sea level. Get a thermometer and try it yourself. If you go to a higher altitude it will even boil at a lower temp. I guess one could say that science has disproved that water boils at any other temp besides 100, but then again that is an ass backwards way to look at things, isn't it?

 

Science is fun

----------------

Post script> Maybe prove is the wrong word. From now on let's use the word demonstrate.

 

Again, if a physcial thing cannot (as in impossible to) be measured in some way, shape, or form it a metaphysical sertitude that it does not exist.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Post script> Maybe prove is the wrong word. From now on let's use the word demonstrate.

 

Again, if a physcial thing cannot (as in impossible to) be measured in some way, shape, or form it a metaphysical sertitude that it does not exist.

 

What about something that is proven to exist recently? We couldn't see atoms and such in the 1800s, and therefore couldn't measure or prove their existence, so what does that mean when we did discover them?

[CubinNY]

Post script> Maybe prove is the wrong word. From now on let's use the word demonstrate.

 

Again, if a physcial thing cannot (as in impossible to) be measured in some way, shape, or form it a metaphysical sertitude that it does not exist.

 

What about something that is proven to exist recently? We couldn't see atoms and such in the 1800s, and therefore couldn't measure or prove their existence, so what does that mean when we did discover them?

 

That is a good question.

 

I think that is where things get a bit cofusing to some. There is a difference between the technological ability to measure something. For instance, atoms were hypothosized to exist long before the invetion of the the atom smasher. Scientists hypothosized that atoms could be discovered through measurement.

 

But on the other hand, let us look at something like "team chemistry" What is it? In order for it to exist it must be measurable independent of its definition.

 

Now if someone wants to argue that it is an intagible or something that defies measurement go right ahead.

 

However, if something is said to exist that BY DEFINITION CANNOT BE MEASURED, well then it does not exist. Again, it is a logical imposiblilty to demonstrate that something does not exists and by extension disprove that something exists. One can only demonstrate that something does exist. I know of no way to demonstrate that "team chemistry" exists or more importantly, is an important variable to a winning team.

 

If anyone believes that someithing exists in such a state, it is a belief that is beyond the bounds of sicence. Becuse science is my business and a large part of my life, I choose to believe it does not exist