WilcoFan

I'm kind of amazed that so many who criticize people like Hawk Harrelson for being ridiculously close-minded turn around and act equally close-minded when anyone dares to give an opinion that cannot necessarily be quantified statistically, even if the criteria for that opinion is one that simply cannot be refuted statistically. To paraphrase myself from another thread, I think Godel's theorem works well here: the lack of empirical evidence supporting a theory does not automatically prove the theory false. People here seem to be forgetting that. What's more disturbing is the level of condescension throw his way. Regardless of what you think of Cuse's initial argument, the condescending attitude from SOME regarding its validity is utterly Harrelsonian. Its almost if some are so frustrated by the fact that there is a limitation to their statistics (as there are to all statistical arguments) that they feel the need to overcompensate by acting as if the argument is so ridiculous that they just need to make fun of it. I think people need to simply accept that they cannot refute his argument using statistics, and as such, the argument has as much validity as any other observation related to our position as fans (assuming, of course, the admitted level of distance we have from the players), and that acting as if ANY observed phenomenon that doesn't jive with your own preconceived notion of a player's state of mind is somehow stupid (which is clearly what is being implied by SOME posts) is really, really petty.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, and in 90-95% of the discussions related to baseball (especially discussions that involve predictive analysis), quantitative stats should make up the bulk of the assessment. The argument Cuse was making was unique, though, as it involved a very specific set of conditions that are difficult to replicate using quantitative stats. Most of the time, I would certainly side with quantitative stats (especially against those who want to argue that Prior "stole money for the last three years"-ugh).

No, not a lawyer or a law student. Decided to back out two weeks before classes began at Northwestern. Didn't have a spare $150,000 lying around. That said, I love the logic related to the study of law. Unfortunately, I found that very little of that logic applies to the actual practice.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot the topic of the thread. It was really dumb to non-tender Prior. Really dumb.

1. Its an opinion, not someone "making stuff up." 2. There is no burden of proof on anyone initiating an opinion, as it is an opinion. This isn't a court case, and there are no incontrovertible facts related to situational opinions. The opponent of that person positing a qualitative opinion always has the burden of proof in proving them wrong, because they chose to challenge that opinion. If you feel that he's "making stuff up," the only two real options are either to (a.) ignore it, or (b.) disagree with it using identical qualitative premises. Disagreeing with it using incomplete quantitative measures doesn't really do much to prove it false.

I guess I am an American Aquarium drinker....

First post on the site (looooong time lurker), but I guess I'll come out firing. I think its fairly ridiculous to completely dismiss and/or belittle CuseCubsFan (which many here have) because of his belief that Prior didn't handle pressure well. There are virtually no statistics that would disprove this claim, as it is not a quantitative observation and based on subjective terminology. Giving statistics about BAA with runners on and/or ERA+ don't do anything to disprove him, because they don't define the situation in which they occurred (i.e. with an 8-0 lead, runners on 1st and 2nd and nobody out pose significantly less threat than 1st and 2nd and nobody out in a 2-1 game). Those who are somehow trying to use numbers to prove that his opinion is dumb seem to be falling into a variation of the logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance, that is, a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. He isn't making statements that can quantitatively be proven false (i.e. "Prior was a bad pitcher"); he's making qualitative statements regarding specific situations that are even more subjective in their interpretation ("pressure situations"). As such, he would have to define the exact situations he's discussing, and since his definition of what qualifies as a pressure situation is undoubtedly different from everyone else's, its impossible to quantitatively prove him wrong. Cuse's opinion is purely that--opinion based on observations of situations. You may disagree with his opinion, but since he is basing his opinion on non-quantitative entities (and using non-quantitative terminology like "pressure"), using statistics that certainly are incapable of capturing the extent of the situations in which he describes certainly does not prove him to have a stupid opinion. Actually, I think using statistics to disprove qualitative statements such as the nature of "pressure" seems to be the more ridiculous thing to do.