Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

A statistician should know an appeal to authority is not a rational argument, and is a fallacy. Who do you think invented WAR? Bill James is not a statistician? What baseball statistician ranks Koufax as the greatest total lefty ever? Your appeal to authority is not only ridiculous, it’s also just completely untrue even if it wasn’t an absurdly terrible fallacy.

Every argument for Koufax just gets more and more absurdist, and thus far all of them have relied on ignoring contextual math, emotion, and a surprising number of appeals to authority that should be evident to even their authors will not stand up to any examination at all. Again, if Spahn is to be punished for his time, then so must Koufax. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

It's more like an appeal to an authority of one, himself.

Who else would have so massive an ego as to not only disregard everyone else who posts here, but more importantly all the scores of people including of course statisticians who have evaluated baseball players and compared them for decades, people who for the most part were dedicated followers of the game?

In Travis' universe though, he is the only intelligent being it seems, no one else matters.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's more like an appeal to an authority of one, himself.

Who else would have so massive an ego as to not only disregard everyone else who posts here, but more importantly all the scores of people including of course statisticians who have evaluated baseball players and compared them for decades, people who for the most part were dedicated followers of the game?

In Travis' universe though, he is the only intelligent being it seems, no one else matters.

If I'm the only statistician in the room and we're discussing statistics, then yes, my opinion is the only one that should matter. Just like if we were discussing how the Supreme Court might rule on an upcoming case and a room full math geeks was debating it with a constitutional attorney, then the attorney's opinion is the only one worth listening to in that discussion. Or if a room full of blue collar parents were in a room with one doctor and they were discussing whether or not to give a sick child some antibiotics, then that doctor would be the only opinion worth listening to. If this were a forum full of other statisticians, then we could all sit and debate the subtle nuances that separate and differentiate certain metrics over others and debate the relevance of each. But you guys aren't capable of that debate. You guys have no clue what you're talking about. You're not statisticians. You don't even understand which statistics are more relevant than the other ones, let alone how to calculate the more advanced statistics and what their implications are. And from my cursory read of this thread so far, you guys don't even have an elementary understanding of the subject, let alone that's capable of having this debate. You guys just want to sit here and talk out your asses like you always do. So carry on pointing to articles that you don't understand (but think you do), and keep drawing your invalid conclusions. After all, it's what lawyers do best!

Keep arguing with statisticians about statistics. You got this one guys! Warren Spahn is the GOAT!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If I'm the only statistician in the room and we're discussing statistics, then yes, my opinion is the only one that should matter. Just like if we were discussing how the Supreme Court might rule on an upcoming case and a room full math geeks was debating it with a constitutional attorney, then the attorney's opinion is the only one worth listening to in that discussion. Or if a room full of blue collar parents were in a room with one doctor and they were discussing whether or not to give a sick child some antibiotics, then that doctor would be the only opinion worth listening to. If this were a forum full of other statisticians, then we could all sit and debate the subtle nuances that separate and differentiate certain metrics over others and debate the relevance of each. But you guys aren't capable of that debate. You guys have no clue what you're talking about. You're not statisticians. You don't even understand which statistics are more relevant than the other ones, let alone how to calculate the more advanced statistics and what their implications are. And from my cursory read of this thread so far, you guys don't even have an elementary understanding of the subject, let alone that's capable of having this debate. You guys just want to sit here and talk out your asses like you always do. So carry on pointing to articles that you don't understand (but think you do), and keep drawing your invalid conclusions. After all, it's what lawyers do best!

Keep arguing with statisticians about statistics. You got this one guys! Warren Spahn is the GOAT!

This attorney would listen respectfully to what other people had to say and would not feel the need to, as G puts it, appeal to his own authority. This is very different from using one's knowledge to explain why other people might be wrong. And by the way, other people usually have intelligent and worthwhile things to say even if they lack a particular expertise. Lots of guys here are not lawyers but they make interesting and worthwhile common sense points on threads about legal issues. You're just a massive egotist which of course ultimately is a sign of insecurity. Here are two choices on how to post an opinion.

1. Here's my opinion and why.
2. Here's my opinion and why, I'm the only one here entitled to have an opinion, and anyone who disagrees with me is a moron.

Which do you think most people respect more?

[G1911]

Now that we've established the rules, awesome.

I'm a data analyst. Looking at the data tells me that Koufax had nowhere near the career of Grove or Spahn, and thus he can not be the greatest lefty ever because other lefties have been better for longer.

Since I am the only data analyst in the room, which I will just assume because that suits my interest in declaring myself infallible, I will now declare that everyone else is thoroughly incompetent and incapable of using numbers correctly, and thus everyone else is completely wrong. I am automatically right, because of my series of assumptions and unstated ground rules I have completely made up precludes any other opinion than my own. I will simply ignore that this is a completely nonsensical appeal to authority and just double down on that fallacy.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Now that we've established the rules, awesome.

I'm a data analyst. Looking at the data tells me that Koufax had nowhere near the career of Grove or Spahn, and thus he can not be the greatest lefty ever because other lefties have been better for longer.

Since I am the only data analyst in the room, which I will just assume because that suits my interest in declaring myself infallible, I will now declare that everyone else is thoroughly incompetent and incapable of using numbers correctly, and thus everyone else is completely wrong. I am automatically right, because of my series of assumptions and unstated ground rules I have completely made up precludes any other opinion than my own. I will simply ignore that this is a completely nonsensical appeal to authority and just double down on that fallacy.

Well shit, why didn't you say so earlier?! We have a data analyst in here folks! Sounds like you guys are in great hands! I'm sure you guys will have no problems sorting this one out now.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Well shit, why didn't you say so earlier?! We have a data analyst in here folks! Sounds like you guys are in great hands! I'm sure you guys will have no problems sorting this one out now.

Yes, it’s an absolutely horrible and illogical argument, isn’t it? My appeal to authority is utterly absurd and completely illogical.

Maybe an actual case, argued on the merits of its evidence and not professed authority and other fallacies, can be presented.

[G1911]

Using WHIP (of course without any adjustment for context, because that math would hurt Sandy), Kershaw is number 1. But he’s active and his number is changing every year. The lowest WHIP for a retired player is Reb Russell. Perhaps he’s the GOAT.

I’ll be disappointed if this advanced statistical basis for Koufax that only certified professionals are capable of understanding turns out to be WHIP.

[Exhibitman]

We have a variation of this debate regularly on the boxing thread, of the 'Tyson would have killed Ali' or 'Frazier would have broken Klitschko in half' variety. The truth is that athletes in each era contended with the rules and limits and inconveniences and attitudes of the sport in each era and would train up accordingly. Joe Louis in 1937 is a 190# killing machine relative to his peers; in 2000 he would be 220# because of the training differences. Guys back then kept in shape primarily by fighting; now it is a lot of weight-lifting and core power exercises and comparatively few actual fights. Same is true of baseball. The season a Grove pitched or a Spahn pitched simply cannot be compared with what a Kershaw pitches today on raw numbers. Saying that Grove had a worse ERA or Spahn barely struck out anyone is meaningless out of context. Grove led the AL in strikeouts seven straight seasons and went over 200 once. He led the league in ERA 8 times but never went below a 2.06. It wasn't the same game strategically. It was guys who hit for super high averages and rarely struck out. Look at Earl Averill. Pretty average HOFer from the thirties. Hit .318 and had a high of 58 strikeouts. The attitude was that a strikeout was a failure, not a price to pay six times to get one HR, which is why if you look at the yearly stats there are virtually no prewar players with 100+ strikeouts but there are dozens every year now. If you look at the really rarified territory--200+ K's a year--they are all post-2000. Dave Kingman was a punchline; today he would be a superstar. Spahn led the league in strikeouts four years, never once over 200 and he pitched an average of 300 innings a year in that stretch. Koufax in his last two seasons pitched 54 complete games (led the league each time with 27) with 13 shut outs. In 1968 Bob Gibson pitched 28 complete games and did not even lead the league. Kershaw has pitched 24 complete games in his entire 14 year career. Max Scherzer has 12 and led the league three times with 4, 2 and 2. It is just a different game. That's why a peak WAR analysis makes more sense than comparing raw stats if you want to assess players of different eras.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This attorney would listen respectfully to what other people had to say and would not feel the need to, as G puts it, appeal to his own authority. This is very different from using one's knowledge to explain why other people might be wrong. And by the way, other people usually have intelligent and worthwhile things to say even if they lack a particular expertise. Lots of guys here are not lawyers but they make interesting and worthwhile common sense points on threads about legal issues. You're just a massive egotist which of course ultimately is a sign of insecurity. Here are two choices on how to post an opinion.

1. Here's my opinion and why.
2. Here's my opinion and why, I'm the only one here entitled to have an opinion, and anyone who disagrees with me is a moron.

Which do you think most people respect more?

The difference is I first answer, "here's my opinion and why". THEN you guys respond with, "you're an idiot and your opinion isn't worth shit". THEN I say, "uh, whose the one arguing about statistics with the statistician"? Big difference. But again, nice try.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The difference is I first answer, "here's my opinion and why". THEN you guys respond with, "you're an idiot and your opinion isn't worth shit". THEN I say, "uh, whose the one arguing about statistics with the statistician"? Big difference. But again, nice try.

Red herring IMO. These are ultimately subjective judgments, informed by statistics sure, but it's not like the question is what's the probability of X happening, or did this drug outperform a placebo, where there is an objective statistical answer (maybe, in the latter case). Statistics don't definitely establish who the best pitcher was. They inform the discussion. So sorry yours is not the only meaningful opinion.

Nor would mine be on a legal issue if I was the only lawyer on a thread. I might be able to make my case better than someone else, but that doesn't make me right or the only one worth listening to. And, a second lawyer could probably come on and argue it very differently -- this happens all the time in the real world where equally qualified experts reach dramatically different conclusions -- so qualifications are only a part of the picture.

Someone who genuinely had confidence in his opinion would not, in my opinion, repeatedly feel the need to shove his qualifications down our throats.