I see what you are saying JC, but even if there are extremist on both sides, how does that affect the fact that there is a place in-between where systematic, analysis, while not entirely objective is superior to a trained naked eye's opinion

Fair enough and of course. There is a place for both.

(sorry Mikael; see Hans Jonas, among others)

I've read Jonas, his "The Gnostic Religion" is a great piece of scholarly reconstruction and existentialist philosophy, but it's way out of date. He drew a lot of conclusions from faulty anthropology which dated the religious myths of the Mandaeans many centuries earlier than they should have, and used their modern myths as ancient sources. He was working primarily from the heresiologists, and among them primarily from Irenaeus. He ended up recapitulating many of Irenaeus' categories pretty much uncritically.

There's very little evidence of any unitary Gnosticism. There's no evidence of people who saw themselves as Gnostics. The category has served for many, from the heresiologists to modern scholars, as a bugbear against which to define the moderate and true Christianity. Irenaeus' work was incredible at defining what it meant to be a Christian by defining his people over and against an other, but we have little reason to believe that other constituted a real, unified historical being.

Mikael: I don't see that really as being at issue, unless one is making the case for some band of people so identified. I'm not. I'm interested in "Gnosticism," which may have or may not have been held by a "real, unified historical being." And as you apparently know, the idea of gnosticism is that anyone willing could join, but only the select (or, elect) could get the secret proprietary information.

And don't diss Jonas.

"If you could get the Beane lovers to stay on point it would be worthwhile conversation."

Serously, how is this "issue" supposed to be decided once and for all in less than 600 posts.

"Bullshitt. There were no holes in my statement and your silly comparison strikes you as clever b/c it's unreflective and based on untruth."

>>You might want to lay off the Union Kool-aid. I wasn't nasty with you, and I don't see myself as being clever. I'd say most of the people who post here are probably quicker than I am. I have some opinions, and I am here to test them/examine them and to learn. And also to see RETARDO and Nieprorent go at it.

"People here have not said Morgan "has weaknesses." They've routinely called him an idiot. B'lasher has NEVER called Beane an idiot, but has questioned the fanboy love and the uncritical attitude towards him."

>>OK, people have called Morgan an idiot. I wasn't defending them--I was suggesting that there are some areas of baseball analysis in which informed outsiders know more than Joe Morgan, just as there are areas in which Joe Morgan knows more than they do. People here and elsehwere have also criticized Morgan on a case-by-case basis. Is that something you do not think should be done, and if so, why not?

"There is no equivalence in the treatment. And yes, Beane's experience in baseball helps him in baseball. I said nothing to make you think otherwise. Stick to the point."

>> Yes, sir.

"What was "counterintuitive" is this crazy divide between "playing baseball" and the "objective analysis of baseball events." You guys are deluding yourselves if (1) you think it's really objective, and (2) if you think "playing baseball" does not confer knowledge on those involved such that they'll be able to understand baseball better than those who have not (typically)."

>>I made my view of this pretty clear with the Bellhorn example and the James/Garciaparra quote. As you yourself said, there is a place for both. Playing the game certainly does "confer knowledge." However, you and Backlasher appear to be taking the position that "inside" knowledge is generally, if not always, superior. You may be right. I tend to disagree, however, and like I said, and as any number of others have said, it's a false dichotomy anyway.

BL--

Thank you for the long and informative answer to my questions about the Braves.

JC: People here have not said Morgan "has weaknesses." They've routinely called him an idiot.

Morgan is an idiot. Have you listened to him? I'm not talking about his failure to follow sabermetrics. One can be unanalytical or even wrong without sounding stupid. But Morgan can't. Just listen to his common discussions with Jon Miller over the course of a game. He's incapable of framing his own arguments intelligently or holding an intelligent exchange with Miller. That doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. People can be right and stupid. It doesn't mean he has no useful information; often when he's calling a game he can point to something small which happened which most people would overlook which led to a particular outcome. It just means he isn't smart.


At what point do the objectivists revisit their assumptions? When do they figure that perhaps they're looking in the wrong places? Never, b/c as so many philosophers of science have shown, ostensibly "objective" science is captured by biases and context as most if not all knowledge is.

To turn a paraphrase, "objective" science is the worst form of knowledge... except all the others. They figure that perhaps they're looking in the wrong places when someone shows where the right places are and what's in those places. This pop-ThomasKuhnism is way out of control. It's a lot easier to say "I don't believe the result because science has biases and I can put scare quotes around the word 'objective'" than to actually do the hard work of showing how and why the result is wrong.

What was "counterintuitive" is this crazy divide between "playing baseball" and the "objective analysis of baseball events." You guys are deluding yourselves ... (2) if you think "playing baseball" does not confer knowledge on those involved such that they'll be able to understand baseball better than those who have not (typically).

Playing baseball -- which, by the way, I think most if not all of us have done at _some_ level -- confers a certain _type_ of knowledge that doesn't come from objective analysis. For instance, if I want to know how a fast guy on first makes the pitcher feel, I'll ask Joe Morgan. (Actually, I won't, because Morgan -- not being a pitcher -- doesn't have any firsthand knowledge of this. I'll ask a pitcher. (On the other hand, does "a pitcher" really speak for all pitchers?))

But if I want to know the effect on the pitcher, I don't care how he "feels." I care how he performs. That's objective, and you're deluding yourself if you think mere playing of baseball confers such knowledge on those involved such that they'll be able to understand better than those who have not (typically). As so many cognitive psychologists have shown, ostensibly experiential "knowledge" is far more subject to bias and context than "ostensibly objective" knowledge is.

Half-truths are also half-lies.

"It's baffling when teams fail to exploit advantageous situations, whether it's running against Mets C Mike Piazza, who began the week 1-for-21 in throwing out attempted basestealers, or bunting against a corner infielder who is playing out of position. White Sox C Chris Widger made his major league debut at third base last week after the Sox lost two infielders to injuries during a night game in Oakland and could not adjust their roster in time for a game against the A's the next afternoon. Not once did the A's attempt to bunt for a base hit, according to a scout who attended the game."

*snicker* Because bunting -- no matter the circumstances, no matter the context -- is the focus of evil in the modern world.

Source

That's a good point RETARDO, but did Widger look out of position? I mean, perhaps they used their strong scouting abilities and figured out that Widger was excellent on bunts? <>

Maybe you have no idea what you're talking about? Seems more likely to me.

Who are you talking to? Retardo's observation or my sarcasm?

*snicker*

the A's also have only 2 SB so far this season.

---------

speaking as someone who has enjoyed following the A's really closely since '99, the next several seasons strike me as holding the promise of much intrigue, but perhaps i'm either easily entertained or lack context..

anyway, fwiw, Chavez is advertising in bright lights that he misses his buddy Miguel over there in Baltimore - the topic of chavez, tejada, and Beane - or who to sign if your Beane and had to choose between the two, looks like it favors one side pretty clearly right now - (sure it's only been a year, but, I didn't see the A's in the play-offs last year)...

speaking of the play-offs last year,
i might be off base here, but my memory is that a workable arguement could be made that the A's missed the playoffs last year as much due to the way the Big 3 pitched in September (down the stretch) as anything else anyone cares to point out..

--------

Mark Kotasy has been terrific for the A's for the past year!

:-*)

*snicker* Because bunting -- no matter the circumstances, no matter the context -- is the focus of evil in the modern world.

I guess that you can consider Earl Weaver modern, but he thought that bunting was pretty evil.

If I'm not mistaken, the Yankees of the 40s-60s didn't sacrifice a whole lot either.

I guess that you can consider Earl Weaver modern, but he thought that bunting was pretty evil.

If I'm not mistaken, the Yankees of the 40s-60s didn't sacrifice a whole lot either.

Yes, but not bunting when a catcher is playing 3B is not smart, tactical baseball. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Weaver, McCarthy, Stengel, Houk, whoever, all would have screamed at their speediest players for not bunting down the 3rd base line given the right situation.

the A's missed the playoffs last year as much due to the way the Big 3 pitched in September (down the stretch) as anything else anyone cares to point out..

I agree, watching Mulders last start was painfull. He was god awful.

The A's missed the playoffs last year for a variety of reasons, just one (or three) of which was the "collapse" of the Big Three (which was really the disappearance of Mark Mulder, the injury to Tim Hudson, and the "only"-above-average Barry Zito).

1) Marco Scutaro (aka losing Mark Ellis for the entire season)
2) The collapse of the bullpen (aka Foulke taking so long to make his decision that by the time Billy Beane knew he needed a new closer, Arthur Rhodes was the only option left)
3) Eric Chavez's injury

JC:

I actually did write something about steriods in the "LASIK" discussion. Ask and ye shall receive, hehe. It's something of a rant - no real format or organization. But it's something. Maybe you missed it?

Quick Link

I look forward to a response.

Injuries are no excuse. Garret Anderson missed more time than Chavez. Bartolo Colon went through a painful Mulder-esque stretch (thankfully he was over it by the end of the year).

The reason the A's didn't make the playoffs last year is named Vladimir Guerrero.

I didn't see the Widger game, so I don't know if not bunting was a good idea or not. If he was afraid of the bunt, and played the whole game on the cutout, then it doesn't make any sense to bunt. If he was playing way back, then of course they should have tried one.

I can't criticise the A's for not bunting. It would make no sense, since they've already used the bunt to beat the Angels in an extra inning game this year.