It's not clear to me that a higher standard of proof is even possible, for the reasons cited above. It doesn't mean such factors don't exist. And for Mike to take the circumstantial evidence of such factors, and reach a conclusion that Milledge wouldn't have helped the Mets- well, I don't agree, but it isn't an unsupported arguement.

I wish I had more time to refute your statements here.

1. Of course a higher standard of proof is possible. Now you can argue that's it's not practical, but there are many, many pieces in many fields (politics, sports, entertainment) that can bring more to the table than a few snippets. Especially give the tone Mike used in his piece.

2. You're basically rebuilding a case now for Mike, adding on pieces that weren't even in his original piece. One can say that either he didn't account for those or he's a poor writer.

I do get tired of people dismissing rival points of view, rather than disagreeing. There is a difference between disputing and dismissing. I think the latter is intellectually dishonest.


3. Primates do a lot of both here. Some views are worthy of disagreeing, some of dismissal. (Appiah can explain this much better than I).

It's not clear to me that a higher standard of proof is even possible, for the reasons cited above.

It is, you already acknowledged that their is in post 81.

No. There is a different kind of proof if it comes from outside of the organization. But that evidence is missing any first-hand experience of the situation. It is NOT at all clear that it constitutes a higher standard, CP.

If you're accusing me of being intellectually dishonest, I think that's a pretty unfounded statement based on my posts in this thread. I haven't dismissed anything, even though you have assigned that position to me. I have called out, or disputed what I believe is questionable support to a questionable conclusion. If I had dismissed it, I wouldn't be here debating the quality of his evidence. Your Mets fan brethren have been the dismissive ones in this thread, not me.

Well, you did call the piece a "hack job", "not remotely valid commentary", "half-assed", seemingly on the basis of not presenting exactly what you would present if writing the piece in post 15.

You haven't dismissed it since then, however.

But I mostly was speaking to a larger point. I see a large number of people on both sides of various debates engaging in "I'm right, your arguement is objectively nothing" when the real disagreement is over how to weigh various subjective pieces of information.

Of course a higher standard of proof is possible.

How do you go about proving that a disruptive force in the clubhouse directly led to a drop in win/loss record of a team? You know, short of a Cliff Johnson-type incident...

I'll try again, there is a conflict of interests when it comes to talking about Lastings Milledge if you work for the New York Mets. They have to save face in front of their fans and the public in regards to this catastrophe of a trade. That's why I'm not going to not just take their word for it that Milledge's upside is limited by his character and his baseball intelligence.

I agree in general with the point you are making, but at the same time, people working for the Mets are the ones most likely to know about his character and baseball intelligence. He's never played for another team. A source from another team saying the same thing might be nice, but really, what would it be based on?

How do you go about proving that a disruptive force in the clubhouse directly led to a drop in win/loss record of a team? You know, short of a Cliff Johnson-type incident...

So now you're going to hold that Lastings was a "disruptive force?" That's a stronger conviction than Lastings wasn't liked by some in the clubhouse. I want to clarify this distinction as it requires different types of quotes and stories to support either one in a journalistic piece. And it doesn't help when Mike and you seem to jump between the two, or blur the distinction.

No. There is a different kind of proof if it comes from outside of the organization. But that evidence is missing any first-hand experience of the situation. It is NOT at all clear that it constitutes a higher standard, CP.

Yes, evidence from outside the organization in this case is a higher standard of proof given the nature of the relationship between Milledge and the Mets.

Well, you did call the piece a "hack job", "not remotely valid commentary", "half-assed", seemingly on the basis of not presenting exactly what you would present if writing the piece in post 15.

It is a hack job, it's an opinion piece that sets out to slam a baseball player because the writer doesn't like him as a person. That doesn't make it wrong, it'd be pretty easy to do a hack job on Julio Lugo or Barry Bonds, for example. Tell me how it's any different from what Plaschke or Lupica churn out. I called his research half assed, for not presenting any evidence from outside of the organization, you have confirmed that there is talk outside of the organization abotu Milledge's issues, I found some quotes from the Nats about their young centerfielder, it is half assed research that couldn't come up with anything outside of the organization. And the piece really isn't a commentary at all, it's just Mike Silva doing everything he can to damage the perception of Milledge's character. Maybe our definitions of what qualifies as a commentary are different. I am absolutely questioning the validity of the piece, it's purpose and it's evidence and responding to the tone it and heals have set. You may somehow be able to shoehorn that into dismissal, but I assure you, it's not.

You haven't dismissed it since then, however.

None of that, of course was dismissal. I find the misrepresentation of other people's posts intellectually dishonest.

But I mostly was speaking to a larger point. I see a large number of people on both sides of various debates engaging in "I'm right, your arguement is objectively nothing" when the real disagreement is over how to weigh various subjective pieces of information.

That's great, I'll just take issue with you calling me intellectually dishonest then.

He's never played for another team. A source from another team saying the same thing might be nice, but really, what would it be based on?

I'll break out an example, here's a quote from Jim Bowden this spring:

“This is the player that all of our evaluators have been watching since his free-agent year out of high school,” general manager Jim Bowden said. “He is only 22 years old and has tremendous potential being a middle-of-the-order impact bat. Like Ryan Zimmerman [and] Chris Marrero, Lastings Milledge is an important part of our long-term future in Washington, D.C. He has tremendous makeup and character. He is all about winning, too.”

I'd imagine having your scouts watch him, talking to the players that play against and with him, talking with him personally and just general observation would allow an organization to get a pretty well rounded and accurate view of a player. The Nats seem to think there are no character issues here (and they have admitted that others, such as Dukes, did need to change their attitude and behavior). Of course, the Nats have their biases at play here too, but I don't think it's stretch to think that teams can evaluate other teams' players character fairly well.

Even a better source than Bowden, Manny Acta knew Lastings before the trade was made and said this about him,

"I know Lastings very well. I can assure you that Lastings is a good kid," Acta said. "He came up to the big leagues very young. He was put in a very tough spot -- New York, a big-market team. He was not prepared to handle it. With that being said, he is a great kid. A lot of that stuff, you can't believe what you hear. I know him first-hand, and I love the kid. I believe the kid is going to be fine with us."

You guys raise some fair points; perhaps it's possible for another team to get an idea of the character of a player who hasn't played on their team. All things being equal though; I think a team that has had a player in their organization for 4 and a half years would have a better idea. That being said, I am not accepting what the Mets have to say about Milledge.

So now you're going to hold that Lastings was a "disruptive force?" That's a stronger conviction than Lastings wasn't liked by some in the clubhouse. I want to clarify this distinction as it requires different types of quotes and stories to support either one in a journalistic piece. And it doesn't help when Mike and you seem to jump between the two, or blur the distinction.

Dear Lord. I'm not arguing that at all. I simply don't know, GENERALLY SPEAKING, how you'd go about proving the negative effect of a particular player on the clubhouse. Do you?

Yes, evidence from outside the organization in this case is a higher standard of proof given the nature of the relationship between Milledge and the Mets.

Well, if you say it is, then it is. Never mind that such evidence comes absent any first-hand knowledge.

I am absolutely questioning the validity of the piece, it's purpose and it's evidence and responding to the tone it and heals have set. You may somehow be able to shoehorn that into dismissal, but I assure you, it's not.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dismiss

I think we are stuck in a semantic point over definitions a and from American Heritage Dictionary. Neither of us, I take it, thinks you have put out Mike Silva's article like a batter in cricket.

That's great, I'll just take issue with you calling me intellectually dishonest then.

Always looking for a fight, CP. I could try and explain again how this wasn't directed at you, that it speaks to a larger point, but I assume you'd just return to seeking a grievance. So instead, I'm going to the gym.

Well, if you say it is, then it is. Never mind that such evidence comes absent any first-hand knowledge.

In this case it clearly is, since the Mets have a motive to disparage Milledge. And it's totally bogus to assume a team has no first hand knowledge of Milledge given how often players, coaches and staff of Major League teams is exchanged. I have no doubt the Nationals talked to a lot of people who knew Milledge before they acquired him.

Always looking for a fight, CP. I could try and explain again how this wasn't directed at you, that it speaks to a larger point, but I assume you'd just return to seeking a grievance. So instead, I'm going to the gym.

I'm sorry Howard. You did say that I'm dismissive of Silva's point, then call being dismissive "intellectually dishonest". Even with you addressing a larger point, I made the assumption that your comments were being applied to me, my bad. Enjoy the workout.

I simply don't know, GENERALLY SPEAKING, how you'd go about proving the negative effect of a particular player on the clubhouse. Do you?

If you are a real reporter, you would go about this by doing reporting. You would interview a wide array of possible sources, collect information, and then disseminate it to the public. You would make as clear as possible who you spoke to and why they constitute a worthwhile and believable sample of opinions.

If you're not a reporter, you would recognize that you don't actually have the means to argue in any robust way that a player is a negative influence on the clubhouse, and so you wouldn't do it. If you made the argument, you would include all necessary caveats about the weakness of your evidence.

Silva did neither. It is unclear whether he is a real reporter or not, but in either case, he failed to do his job. Thus the problem.

EDIT: Silva's argument was about how Milledge's character will impact his future development, but I think my proposed norms of argument apply equally.

Between Wily Mo and Lastings the Nats have some serious "Carlos Pena" type breakout potential.

If you are a real reporter, you would go about this by doing reporting. You would interview a wide array of possible sources, collect information, and then disseminate it to the public. You would make as clear as possible who you spoke to and why they constitute a worthwhile and believable sample of opinions.

This, of course, in no way proves what that effect is on a particular team's overall record. My point is that such a measurement does not seem possible.

i hope my point about dismissing opinions that evaluate evidence differently doesn't morph into a belief that A) I approve of this trade or B) Think Lastings Milledge is going to be less than a top-quality major leaguer, and as soon as this year. Just wanted to make that point again.

This, of course, in no way proves what that effect is on a particular team's overall record. My point is that such a measurement does not seem possible.

Sure, but that hardly means that a responsible attempt at solid reporting is equal in value to a bunch of cherry-picked, questionably transcribed quotes.

Most interesting things in baseball aren't "provable". That simply means that it requires good, careful work to develop arguments about the interesting things in baseball, and it means we should be as clear as possible in challenging work like Silva's that fails to live up to these norms of discussion. (In Silva's case, I'd say he didn't even try.)

(In Silva's case, I'd say he didn't even try.)

Talk about asserting the unprovable!

Heals, for instance, has implied many times that he knows things about Milledge that we don't:

I've covered the Mets since 1998, and I have yet to find a guy that's coached Milledge that will say the same things about him ON the record that they say OFF the record.
...
However, Milledge pretty much created his own reality there. This is not some misunderstood kid whose shyness was mistaken for arrogance. This was a guy who came into that clubhouse with an ego and 'tude that "didn't come close to his game"...yes that's an unnamed source, sorry.
...
There are guys in that clubhouse, not as vocal as Wagner, that felt the same way [about Milledge lacking "respect"].

If all of this is the case, it seems like a great opportunity to actually do some reporting. Collect sources and quotes, analyze and determine the most plausible narratives. Present them in a careful fashion, acknowledging possible biases and asymmetries of information. Draw reasonable conclusions. It would be a major contribution to our knowledge of recent events in baseball and our knowledge about Lastings Milledge, a pretty fascinating baseball player.

(In Silva's case, I'd say he didn't even try.)

Talk about asserting the unprovable!

Maybe Silva did do a lot of work, but it's not evident by the piece he produced. Ultimately, that's what has to be judged.

If all of this is the case, it seems like a great opportunity to actually do some reporting. Collect sources and quotes, analyze and determine the most plausible narratives. Present them in a careful fashion, acknowledging possible biases and asymmetries of information. Draw reasonable conclusions. It would be a major contribution to our knowledge of recent events in baseball and our knowledge about Lastings Milledge, a pretty fascinating baseball player.

If such an article existed, it would be superior. I don't know that one does. I certainly attempted that when I wrote about Milledge last summer in the Observer.

Maybe Silva did do a lot of work, but it's not evident by the piece he produced. Ultimately, that's what has to be judged.

Ultimately, I think his opinions will be judged on how often he turns out to be correct. That is not to say that an observer will not get lucky from time to time- but my experience in reading baseball writers is that the best ones are proven right far more often by subsequent events than the poor ones.

Gotta agree with MCoA. There are different kinds of evidence, both stats and non-stats, and each has to properly supported.

Would anyone buy a stats-based argument if the person put forward the argument "An unknown source told me his stats sucked?" Of course not.

Why should we accept lower standards of support for a type of evidence that is less clear-cut and less easily verified?

Gotta agree with MCoA. There are different kinds of evidence, both stats and non-stats, and each has to properly supported.

Dan, I totally agree with this. My point isn't that unnamed sources, regardless of who they are, and transparent statistical analysis are both equal because both are one kind of evidence. But how do you properly measure the subjective things, like a scout's opinion? Or when many scouts agree? And if you can't objectively measure it, do we discount its relevance entirely?

Now Dan, don't be using any of that fancy "logic".

Dan, I totally agree with this. My point isn't that unnamed sources, regardless of who they are, and transparent statistical analysis are both equal because both are one kind of evidence. But how do you properly measure the subjective things, like a scout's opinion? Or when many scouts agree? And if you can't objectively measure it, do we discount its relevance entirely?

Silva deserves as little benefit of the doubt as he was willing to give Lastings Milledge. If it reads like a the bile of a hater, it probably is. I need no more evidence than he himself has provided.

But how do you properly measure the subjective things, like a scout's opinion? Or when many scouts agree? And if you can't objectively measure it, do we discount its relevance entirely?

I'm not sure why we keep speaking past each other. Let me try again.

With any particular event, there will always be multiple stories and interpretations - as they say, there is no lie greater than "no, I was there, and it didn't happen that way." Telling the story of a particular event requires collecting and culling through many sources, evaluating them, challenging them, and letting them stand in productive tension. With something even more elusive and changeable, like a person's character, it requires even more careful collection and evaluation of evidence. To present a convincing account of a person's character, it requires many sources of information, and a responsible effort to present these different sources in all their complexity, while also taking a critical eye to the different investments each source has.

If you want to make an argument about the relationship between Lastings Milledge's character and his projected career as a professional baseball player, you need to master a broad array of sources of evidence, critically evaluate them, and present them to your audience in a relatively transparent way.

It's not about whether anonymous sources are good or bad. It's about collecting the best range of evidence possible, and honestly evaluating how complete and convincing this range of evidence is.

In the case of Silva, he failed on all these fronts. He selected only a few pieces of evidence, he did not critically evaluate his sources, and he presented his argument with no acknowledgement of the profound weakness and incompleteness of his evidence.

I think a team that has had a player in their organization for 4 and a half years would have a better idea. That being said, I am not accepting what the Mets have to say about Milledge.

I agree, as a life long Mets fan I have to tell you I just don't trust them when they they start making decisions based upon what they believe a player's character is and how they believe that will effect his development and the team's chemistry... When they make decision on that they have (for 20 odd years) been invariably wrong.

The Mets misread and made bad decisions on the following players, in part, because they either misread the player's character and or the impact the player's character had on performance:
Kevin Mitchell (well they were right about his character- wrong about how it would effect his onfield performance)
Nails
Cone
Burnitz (hit the trifecta, had him when he was young and not perforoming, later when old and not performing, missed the meat of his career)
Everett
Kazmir
Conversely they traded for or kept around players like Derek Bell and Vince Coleman and Rey Ordonez- basically uncoachable cretins who weren't nearly as good as they believed they were and refused to try to improve

The Milledge deal is basically the Amos Otis deal redux- except Church is actually half decent and Foy, well Foy had issues

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/gotham_baseball_healey6/

Just in case anyone thinks that Gotham is biased when it comes to Milledge, I refer you to the above link.

Re: #119

If all of this is the case, it seems like a great opportunity to actually do some reporting. Collect sources and quotes, analyze and determine the most plausible narratives. Present them in a careful fashion, acknowledging possible biases and asymmetries of information. Draw reasonable conclusions. It would be a major contribution to our knowledge of recent events in baseball and our knowledge about Lastings Milledge, a pretty fascinating baseball player.

I've been writing Milledge stories for three years.

anyone see what Acta said today?

Nationals manager Manny Acta acknowledged he advised Lastings Milledge to tone down any anti-Mets rhetoric.

Said Acta: "I just talked to him and said, 'Hey, you ought to feel thankful to the New York Mets. They got you out of Bradenton (Milledge's Florida hometown) and put you in the big leagues. Three-and-a-half years later in your career, you were in the big leagues, playing in New York. You went through whatever kind of experience you want to call it, but now move on. You've got a great opportunity over here, and you're going to play, and you're going to show the world what you can do.'"

Acta said Milledge will be his everyday center fielder. The manager projects Milledge will hit 25-30 homers a season in his prime.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2008/03/07/2008-03-07_pedro_outing_rained_out.html

I've been writing Milledge stories for three years.

That's nice. Do you have a link to one where you sort transparently through a wide selection of evidence, evaluate sources critically based on their different interests, and draw conclusions commensurate with the breadth and strength of the evidence presented? I'd be interested to see how you understand your own work - my take, from reading Gotham articles linked here, is that this sort of careful, modest knowledge production is not the goal of Gotham Baseball.

You went through whatever kind of experience you want to call it, but now move on. You've got a great opportunity over here, and you're going to play, and you're going to show the world what you can do.'"

Acta said Milledge will be his everyday center fielder. The manager projects Milledge will hit 25-30 homers a season in his prime.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I would trade Willie, a B level prospect (Kunz or Parnell), and 10M for Acta. That's how highly I regard Acta.

That's nice. Do you have a link to one where you sort transparently through a wide selection of evidence, evaluate sources critically based on their different interests, and draw conclusions commensurate with the breadth and strength of the evidence presented? I'd be interested to see how you understand your own work - my take, from reading Gotham articles linked here, is that this sort of careful, modest knowledge production is not the goal of Gotham Baseball.

I'm proud of every single story I have written on Gotham, and having the opportunity to work with class people like Howard Megdal and Mike Silva has been a blessing. Perhaps your criticisms would have a little more weight if you were a little less biased and agenda-driven.

A.) I have disagreed with Howard on this issue and many issues. Yet, he -- and Howard has an EXCELLENT reputation in this business -- has never been given any editorial edicts from me (except maybe to meet his deadline, which he always does)

B.) I have talked to hundreds of people over the last three seasons regarding Milledge and numerous other issues; front office types, players, coaches, minor league instructors, etc.

THREE years ago, Milledge was the REAL DEAL. Two Years ago? A guy who could hit .330 and drive in 100 runs. Last year? A solid all-around player with some upside if he gets "all his mess" straighnened out.

This year? Nobody wanted him.

My analysis of Milledge has always been about his game, nothing else. I have always reported various opinions of him, and have always mentioned Minaya's great affection for him. Our coverage has always been objective, and I've even taken the mainstream media criticism of him to task.

You went through whatever kind of experience you want to call it, but now move on. You've got a great opportunity over here, and you're going to play, and you're going to show the world what you can do.'"

Acta said Milledge will be his everyday center fielder. The manager projects Milledge will hit 25-30 homers a season in his prime.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I would trade Willie, a B level prospect (Kunz or Parnell), and 10M for Acta. That's how highly I regard Acta.

Seriously. I have no idea how good he is at actually managing, but he's pretty much the only manager who always seems to make sense and say reasonable things. Although I wonder, if he was with a real team filled with veteran egos, would he spout the same stupid cliches most managers do, just to avoid stepping on toes? Anyway, I hope he's wildly successful... if nothing else, the guy gives great interview.

I just watched Perez's third inning today and his numbers won't look all that good but it was not really his fault.

In the third inning:

Anderson Hernandez made a throwing error.
Then, the rightfielder slipped on a bloop (muggy and wet field).
Pagan got turned around on a deep flyball (windy) that should have been caught.
He got two outs and then would have been out of the inning but the second baseman and rightfielder let the ball fall.

The defense, because of weather conditions and mistakes, was really bad.

Perez wasn't exactly sharp with his control and he was throwing around 88-91 so he wasn't great. He was better than the numbers looked though.

Perhaps your criticisms would have a little more weight if you were a little less biased and agenda-driven.

MCofA has an agenda?! Oh, man, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Seriously, MCofA just explained things more thoroughly and clearly than I could hope to. Howard strikes me as a class act from all my interactions. I can trust you on the Mike Silva character defense. But the piece in question was a hack job.


THREE years ago, Milledge was the REAL DEAL. Two Years ago? A guy who could hit .330 and drive in 100 runs. Last year? A solid all-around player with some upside if he gets "all his mess" straighnened out.

I can believe that some people *perceive* that. But all that means is that some evaluators still don't understand the nuances of context. In Milledge's case, two critical factors: 1. Age adjusted to competition level. 2. Park effects.

This has been hashed and rehashed at nauseum. Pull up any Milledge thread in the last two years, and you're likely to see this discussed in detail.

Milledge has not fallen off any trajectory. In fact, one may argue that his trajectory has solidified at each level. The drop-offs you see are purely a result of:
1) Park effects, which are significant in Milledge's case. He has hit in some of the toughest parks and leagues in professional ball.
2) Adjustment periods as Milledge has been aggressively promotedly at each level.

We can debate the aspects that require more up close views of Milledge as a player (character, clubhouse impact, etc.) But on the issues of the numbers he's put up, Milledge has put up excellent numbers at each level and that *can* be understood through stats in the proper context.

Killer Tomato alert! Home run by Saenz but it was wind-aided. He hit a double against the lefty Lee and the homer was against Betancourt.

*Alert*

Hampton left his game today with a strained groin.