Looking Back at Moneyball - 20 years later

[Edgy MD]

There isn't a total lack of objective numerical evidence. Of course there isn't.



There isn't definitive proof, but that's not the same thing. We've been down this road.



Nor is your position itself presented with objective numerical evidence, but conditional arguments/hypothetical syllogisms.



So, no, it's not a closed question. That doesn't mean you're right or wrong, but we're applying different standards to our imagined opponents than we are to ourselves.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: There isn't a total lack of objective numerical evidence. Of course there isn't. There isn't definitive proof, but that's not the same thing. We've been down this road. Nor is your position itself presented with objective numerical evidence, but conditional arguments/hypothetical syllogisms. So, no, it's not a closed question. That doesn't mean you're right or wrong, but we're applying different standards to our imagined opponents than we are to ourselves.

I wasn't going for the mathematical angle, but I'd like to see whatever objective numerical evidence there is for clutch hitting. That they've been playing baseball for almost 200 years and we have to squint at supposed evidence of clutch hitting and hold it up just so to the light to maybe see a glimmer of something that nobody, not even the Ph.D's in math agree on, says enough for me.



Anyways, I was going for the logic, or illogic logic of it all. Not the numbers. The idea that some players have these magic powers that they could turn on at will like some light switch to hit way better than they ordinarily do, powers that they choose to use only sometimes, maybe 10 or 20 times a year, instead of all of the time is just bonkers and defies all common sense. It's like believing in god. There's not a shred of evidence to support it. It defies every known principle of science and physics. Objectively, it's batshit crazy and makes no more sense, realistically, than Jack and the Beanstalk or the Three Little Pigs. The best defense for the crazy idea, the only defense, really, is that others can't prove that there is no god. Of course, by that logic, one can claim anything. Anything! Flying elephants? Why not? Just because nobody's seen a flying elephant doesn't mean they don't exist because how do you know that the flying elephants can't make themselves invisible like Claude Rains?

Flying elephants work in mysterious ways.



Enough with the clutch hitting. At some point, people just have to face facts instead of clinging to myths and old wive's tales. But maybe it's our nature to believe these nutty things. We like to make order out of things, even when there isn't any. We can't accept the idea of randomness and luck controlling our lives to such a great extent. So we make up crazy shit to explain this stuff.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Guest

[Fman99]

I thought the movie was terrible. I can very quickly name a dozen baseball movies that were more entertaining to me.

[Edgy MD]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=100240 time=1658231798 user_id=68]It defies every known principle of science and physics.

[MFS62]

IMO, more appropriate is the Peter Principal, which says a person rises to his level of incompetence.

Later

[Edgy MD]

=Fman99 post_id=100241 time=1658232756 user_id=86]
I thought the movie was terrible. I can very quickly name a dozen baseball movies that were more entertaining to me.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Moneyball is on tomorrow at 8PM on AMC, if anyone's interested.

[Fman99]

Edgy MD wrote: =Fman99 post_id=100241 time=1658232756 user_id=86] I thought the movie was terrible. I can very quickly name a dozen baseball movies that were more entertaining to me.

And ... go!

[Edgy MD]

I'd certainly agree with you on several of those.



Brewster's Millions, huh?

[Fman99]

For entertainment value, absolutely.