WilcoFan

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.

This is all I'm saying...

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.

I believe that every truth that we now accept started out as someone observing something, then claiming its true. Through experimentation (in this case, a look through relevant statistics), that observation is either proven to be true or proven to be false. ' Oddly enough, the sarcastic situation you threw out (Newton and gravity) was just Newton claiming to have a good eye and throwing something out there. Only through research and experimentation was his good eye proven to be true.

yes, truly, cuse deserves all the credit for imb's work. without his baseless assertion, imb's research would never exist. =D> Silly sarcasm aside, isn't this the nature of scientific research? Someone has a theorem, they don't know if its true, research is done to either prove the theorem true or false. What IMB did was necessary to actually come to some level of resolution to the debate. Relying upon the idea that "it sounds baseless, so it must be wrong" doesn't exactly seem like a reliable way of actually, I don't know, proving something. pick up a scientific journal and see how many submissions you can find that are just people throwing out baseless hypotheses, asking people to either disprove or support them. Actually, scientific journals are FULL of observed phenomenon that are either (a.) proven to be true through experimentation or (b.) proven to be false through experimentation. Its the nature of the scientific method. dear world, i think gravity might exist or something. you guys figure it out and let me know. love, isaac Wow. Proved me wrong. Sarcasm and ridicule proves a point better than discussion ever could, apparently. a. Cuse had an observation b. IMB did research to disprove his observation c. The truth was discovered Seems pretty simple to me, and really not nearly as contentious and in need of pointless ridicule and silly sarcasm as you think. What, exactly, is gained by taking shots at Cuse (and me, apparently) because he had an observation that differed from yours? His theory was proven false-isn't that enough? Or does everyone somehow benefit by taking shots at others after the fact?

yes, truly, cuse deserves all the credit for imb's work. without his baseless assertion, imb's research would never exist. =D> Silly sarcasm aside, isn't this the nature of scientific research? Someone has a theorem, they don't know if its true, research is done to either prove the theorem true or false. What IMB did was necessary to actually come to some level of resolution to the debate. Relying upon the idea that "it sounds baseless, so it must be wrong" doesn't exactly seem like a reliable way of actually, I don't know, proving something. pick up a scientific journal and see how many submissions you can find that are just people throwing out baseless hypotheses, asking people to either disprove or support them. Actually, scientific journals are FULL of observed phenomenon that are either (a.) proven to be true through experimentation or (b.) proven to be false through experimentation. Its the nature of the scientific method.

yes, truly, cuse deserves all the credit for imb's work. without his baseless assertion, imb's research would never exist. =D> Silly sarcasm aside, isn't this the nature of scientific research? Someone has a theorem, they don't know if its true, research is done to either prove the theorem true or false. What IMB did was necessary to actually come to some level of resolution to the debate. Relying upon the idea that "it sounds baseless, so it must be wrong" doesn't exactly seem like a reliable way of actually, I don't know, proving something.

why would he feel any obligation not to go to the team he feels he fits best? why is it classless to go elsewhere in the division? It's a slap in the face to the Cubs fans that idolized him. You know the people that paid for the tickets, bought his jersey, etc. The city of Chicago and Cubs fans made him rich - and we've been waiting (and paying) for a long time for him to get healthy. If he wanted to repay a little bit of what he's been given by all of us he could have taken a two-year incentive laden deal. How about a little loyalty? If he comes back in the 2nd half of 08 pitching for another team in the same division it only magnifies things. Take your smug expressions and get out of town Mark. Things Mark Prior has given Cubs fans and management 657 IP 757 Ks, 223 BBs, 3.51 ERA, 1.225 WHIP 123 ERA+ Going out and pitching through pain for what appears to have been the majority of his Cubs career. Did I miss something? When did Prior pitch through pain? Seems to me he shut it down at the first sign of any pain. Nice try, though. You realize he was flipped over, dropped on his PITCHING SHOULDER, and continued pitching int he same game, right? And he was hit by a line drive (hit at roughty 130 MPH) on his PITCHING ELBOW and came back in 2-3 weeks, right? And he had a shoulder injury requiring surgery that couldn't be diagnosed, yet continued pitching, right? I think those were the things you missed.

I agree that the irrational hatred of him is ridiculous and stupid. But my sense of it is that people are angry and upset-this guy was supposed to be the greatest Cub pitcher (and possibly the greatest pitcher period) of all time. And his first year, it looked like it was going to happen. All the sudden, he's gone-no championship, no "greatest pitcher ever," no anything. And people are mad. When people get mad, they look for someone to blame. Instead of looking at the HUGE number of intricacies the situation presents, its a lot easier for people to go to the simplest, most guttural reaction: it must be his fault, the wuss. The media runs with it, perpetuates within people that guttural reaction, and suddenly it becomes "truth." Its ridiculous and dumb, but I think that's what happened. Importantly, though, I don't think its right to go to the complete opposite side and do what some people are doing: insinuating that somehow he was wronged by this evil Cubs organization who did everything they could to alienate him and push him out of the organization simply because they didn't like him. I don't really think that's true either.

why would he feel any obligation not to go to the team he feels he fits best? why is it classless to go elsewhere in the division? It's a slap in the face to the Cubs fans that idolized him. You know the people that paid for the tickets, bought his jersey, etc. The city of Chicago and Cubs fans made him rich - and we've been waiting (and paying) for a long time for him to get healthy. If he wanted to repay a little bit of what he's been given by all of us he could have taken a two-year incentive laden deal. How about a little loyalty? If he comes back in the 2nd half of 08 pitching for another team in the same division it only magnifies things. Take your smug expressions and get out of town Mark. Things Mark Prior has given Cubs fans and management 657 IP 757 Ks, 223 BBs, 3.51 ERA, 1.225 WHIP 123 ERA+ Going out and pitching through pain for what appears to have been the majority of his Cubs career. Some of the things Cubs fans and management have given Mark Prior Hilarious towel jokes Hilarious vagina jokes Hilarious ten cent head jokes Shameless abuse of his arm Scapegoating for the loss in '03 Insinuations of being a headcase Insinuations of being soft(not the word often used, but that one wouldn't pass the filter) Insinuations of being on steroids Insinuations of being a cocky, spoiled jerk Loyalty indeed. I think I hear the smallest violin in the world, playing only for Mark Prior. What a tragedy for him. I think we should ask the Darfur refugees to give a little of the rations they get each day and donate them to the "Mark Prior feels bad" fund. At the same time, we have no idea if Mark Prior is tough, or a wuss, or a jerk, or a nice guy (or teammate). All we really know is that he was a GREAT pitcher who unfortunately got hurt. He got criticized by stupid fans. I don't think there's a player in baseball that doesn't get criticized by stupid fans. It comes with the territory. The Cubs SHOULD HAVE offered him arbitration. But they didn't. This isn't some great injustice. It was a bad business decision, nothing more. Its ridiculous to try and assign some level of emotional blame to EITHER side in this situation. Prior is not a jerk and the Cubs did not treat him poorly. When he said he was "just an employee," he was right. He was an employee, and when management felt he couldn't do the job anymore, they cut ties with him. Feel free to disagree with the decision (I do), but people on BOTH sides of the discussion who seem to be consumed with placing emotional blame on one side or the other are both being a little ridiculous. To put it simply: this whole situation stinks. It is horrible that we're not talking about how he's had 4 straight years of 20 wins, whether or not he's going to win the Cy Young award this year, and how he and Zambrano are the best 1-2 punch in baseball. I think we all agree that this just flat out stinks. Its natural to want to blame someone for it, I think. But people just need to accept that this is a horrible situation, its over, and we need to move on.

I ordered a custom 'Fukudome' jersey shirt from the cubs.com store last night. Since he plans on going with 'Kosuke', I wasn't sure they would allow it for much longer so I didn't wait to get an order in. :D can you send a link? Here's the link -- Click customize, add the name and number, and click preview. danke Unfortunately, I just got a cancellation notice for my order. $*&%&*(^() I guess the Cubs and Fukudome want to prevent anything other than 'Kosuke' on official merchandise. Just thought you'd want to see this: http://www.wrigleyvillesport.com/istar.asp?a=6&id=53861!MAJ&utm_source=wvs&utm_medium=blog

Lots of cheaters in the hall of fame. Spitball throwers, sign stealers...how about Ty Cobb's sharpened spikes? willing to cheat =/= steroid user This is a great point. IF Sammy used (and that's a big "if), it was not illegal or outlawed by MLB the years he was most likely juicing. That does not condone it, but if he did it, it was technically "within the rules." Compare this to someone like Gaylord Perry, who admitted to throwing an illegal pitch for most of his career, was caught on at least one occasion with a foriegn substance/object, and yet he seems to be revered. Would you be in favor of expelling him from the Hall of Fame seeing as it's a fact that he cheated, rather than keeping someone out based on speculation and public opinion? It makes no sense. Competitors in all arenas have always looked to gain an edge though whatever means are possible, but within reason (or not). The fact that others in previous eras did not juice is only due to the lack of juice. It is difficult for me to revere or admire athletes from bygone days when I know full well that the scope of their cheating was only limited by the methods available to them. The notion that they somehow had more integrity than players of the steroid era is just ridiculous, IMO. The problem is that so many sportswriters are so stupidly nostalgic for days that never actually existed. A little too much "Field of Dreams," not quite enough critical analysis.

Given Haren's dropoff during the second half of last year (OPSA of .813, tOPS+ against of 135), I think he's going to be solid for them, but not exactly spectacular. That type of dropoff might be an indicator of a possible injury down the road. Granted, I don't necessarily see a Mulder-like dropoff, but those are some dangerous looking numbers. They're still going to need some offensive players to replicate last year's success, which isn't necessarily a given (especially for players like Byrnes).

I'm thinking more of a dynasty league at this point. We have a minimal keeper league going already, but some of us would like to branch out and kill all of our remaining free time.

My friends and I are thinking about starting a baseball keeper league next year, but none of us have a whole lot of experience in it. Does anyone have a solid keeper leage they can talk about, or know of the best web sites where I can learn details about them?

He might as well just put a bunch of names on a grid on a poster and had a chicken drop. "Hmm...Luis Quinones? Good enough-I'm voting for him!"

I imagine most of them will set it straight once Fukudome is introduced this week. Has anyone heard what day his press conference is yet? I have to imagine the Cubs marketing department would want it as early as possible to capitalize on the buzz coupled with the Christmas season. My guess is that they have already shipped a number of jerseys to local sports stores in the hopes that people haven't quite finished Christmas shopping yet.

This is a legitimate opinion and should not be discarded simply because stats don't support it. Nice to see that the "attack the post and not the poster" can be skirted around as long as you do it passive-aggressively... Anyway, thanks for the heads up...apparently, there are a number of outlets online that are going to have some merchandise issues. Its fairly amazing to me considering its all based upon a childish mispronunciation of his last name.

Harrelson's attitude towards anything stat related has never been anything but dismissive-from the "Beane and all his stats would be a nothing GM without Zito, Mulder, and Hudson" quote he gave on Chicago sports radio, to "The Oakland A's won't finish within 15 games of the Angels, and there's nothing their stat-heads can do about it" comment he made later that year, I think Harrelson has distinguished himself as having a fairly condescending view of anyone who believes in any stat "other than the W."

To be fair, I don't think cuse ever actually said pressure situations. At the same time, cuse didn't mean anytime runners get on base Prior folds (all he said to begin with was when Prior "got hit he faded", and then he clarified it to when he had been hit hard, i.e. given up 4 runs or more in a game. Nothing has been used statistically to refute that yet. Now, if someone did the legwork they could refute statistically that Prior's performance didn't suffer in those situations, but that would be a lot of work for a person to do for a small argument that in a week will mean nothing :) . The fading part is a qualitative statement that the stats can give indicators for (if he pitched well in those situations he has a greater chance that he wasn't fading at the time) but cannot prove it definitively to be wrong. I also think there's been a quick rush to call an unsupported opinion as a "bad" opinion. A bad opinion is unreasonable, somthing that is incredibly unlikely given the available evidence. We know barely anything about how Prior performed after giving up 4 runs, so virtually no opinion that doesn't touch the extremes is likely to be unreasonable (for example, an extreme would be that Prior cried on the mound when he gave up several runs. We all saw that he didn't do that in those situations, so that's a bad opinion). At the same time, the detractors are right that it is an unsupported opinion. Even though it's reasonable, so are a host of other opinions. Because it's an unsupported opinion, it's very unlikely that it's going to convince anyone to change to that way of thinking (it certainly hasn't changed my belief that Prior did a great job of settling down and pitching well most of the time after some early runs in games). That doesn't make it unreasonable though, not until the available evidence changes significantly. Well stated. I think this is fair enough.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is, I'm not really sure how I did that. I'm pretty sure I referred to "SOME (I used the caps on purpose) posts" in this thread being condescending and dismissive of the post in a manner similar to a person who (rightly) is universally loathed on the board (Harrelson). I'm not sure why you feel the need to extrapolate that out to some big "Us vs. Them" thing. I think you're reading into this a little bit too much. I actually would consider myself a "stat-head," to be honest. I was making a very specific argument in relation to a very specific set of circumstances.

Yep. I think I'll copyright that one.

Thanks for the welcome. Been lurking for at least a year; might as well contribute a little bit.

Looking online for a Fukudome jersey, I've seen jersey with "Fukudome" on the back, and others with "Kosuke" on the back. Anyone know what the actual jersey will say? And why is there this discrepancy? Mods, feel free to move this to a more appropriate forum if I have put it in the wrong place.