This is what it must have felt like to be at Camp David

this actually reminds of the threads on philliesphans

It's really hard to get you to admit that you redefine arguments rather than admit you were wrong when you redefine the argument and then don't admit you were wrong. My personal favorite is this:

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.p ... /#comments

This seems particularly good at showing nitpicking with BP's marketing which is obviously very good if, in being marketing, it exaggerates true statements. It's also a pretty good example of people telling you that you're biased against BP, giving a really obvious example, and of you redefining the argument so that you're not technically wrong. You redefine arguments a lot.

If you are suggesting that you, or others, come to my blog to somehow make yourself a name, and even not be completely truthful in your posts in order to advance a personal cause, I would be highly disappointed.

Otherwise, I believe that everyone posts there for the greater good.

I doubt many people are intentionally lying, if anyone is at all. People are not 100% honest with themselves. Basically everyone would rather be right than wrong. People line up their beliefs with their goals frequently. I don't see any reason why there would be like 90% correlation between socially conservative and economically conservative beleifs, yet that's what happens (maybe next I can get Nate Silver to pop in at BSG somehow and correct me if I'm wrong!). People feel strongly about one and convince themselves about the other. Human beings are biased by nature.

Well, that's a bad job at BPro for not highlighting what's happening elsewhere.

This is how I learned about sabermetrics: my roommate read Moneyball. He showed me the chapter on DIPS. I called bull shit. I bought the book. I uncalled bull shit. I asked him whether there was Moneyball on the web. He said there something called Baseball Prospectus. I began reading free BP content. I subscribed. I heard about THT. I heard about Fangraphs. I heard about Tango. I added those to my bookmarks. I realized that economics training gave me a comparative advantage at sabermetrics. The guys at The Good Phight invited me to join. Yada yada yada.

I would guess that THT and Fangraphs get more readers from BP than vice versa, precisely because my process of learning of sabermetrics is so common. BP has every right to advocate their own metrics, writers, and articles. Plenty of us cite other websites all the time. BP has more subscribers and links to other sites more.

If you want to tell me your readers are all unbiased, go and look through all the times you linked to my articles at StatSpeak and all the times you linked to my articles at BP. Then tell me how I suddenly learned how to suck so much at sabermetrics.

What is SOMA?

Shorter outings, more appearances. Isn't that the thing where starters do better the first time through the lineup? Maybe that's not what you called it actually, but Funck cited you regardless.

***

I am one person at BP and I think I'm critical and complimentary of your work pretty fairly. So are a lot of the regular writers. I don't know who exactly currently doing hardcore sabermetrics at BP is not fair to you or to THT. I don't think Christina, Will, Steven, Kevin, Jay, John, David, Alex or any of the other weekly writers really tread on the same ground as you. You don't do the same topics as them. Among the really hardcore sabermetricians, Eric, Russell, Colin, and Tommy all wrote at THT and I almost did. It seems your current issues are with the wildly successful marketing that has made sabermetrics somehow mainstream, and with saying that PECOTA is "deadly accurate," which is obviously a matter of whether you compare it to other newer sophisticated projection systems or the average fans understanding of how to guess at the outcome of future baseball games.

Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean that really got out of hand fast!

I think it's pretty clear what has to happen here. You two must unite against Sheehan

"But I treated you like a son."

"I wasn’t made to play the son."

MattS wrote:It's really hard to get you to admit that you redefine arguments rather than admit you were wrong when you redefine the argument and then don't admit you were wrong. My personal favorite is this:

EXCELLENT example. If I may redefine your argument here , I would say I am more clearly defining the parameters of the argument. However, I will accept that it appears I am trying to twist something to meet my needs. The purpose of my defining the parameters is so that there is resolution to the debate. I usually, not always, but usually, try to define the parameters so that each side can walk away feeling satisfied with the resolution.

But, it doesn't always work. I'd say the regular posters at my site appreciate my style, which is why they are regular posters. You, obviously have a different point of view, and so, you find it more challenging to deal with me.

That's ok.

Basically everyone would rather be right than wrong. People line up their beliefs with their goals frequently.

Well, we'll agree to disagree. I think people come to my blog and check their beliefs and egos at the door.

If you want to tell me your readers are all unbiased, go and look through all the times you linked to my articles at StatSpeak and all the times you linked to my articles at BP. Then tell me how I suddenly learned how to suck so much at sabermetrics.

?? I have no idea where this came from. Who said my readers are unbiased? And who said anything about you sucking. Are you referring to the one reader who said a bad thing about you? I responded that he was wrong. But ,this guy is a joker, and he's said bad things about me and MGL as well. That guy was a jerk and is a meaningless data point.

Otherwise, I don't see perceptions of you changing at my site. Obviously, you see it differently. It's amazing how two people can look at the same thing and see totally different things.

Shorter outings, more appearances. Isn't that the thing where starters do better the first time through the lineup? Maybe that's not what you called it actually, but Funck cited you regardless.

Oh, ok. I have no issue with the cites. It's simply the impossibility of trying to do business like getting a darn link to my Fan project, which is a project that benefits all fans, not me.

I am one person at BP and I think I'm critical and complimentary of your work pretty fairly. So are a lot of the regular writers. I don't know who ...

Again, I have no personal issue with anyone in particular. Just the basic business process that I can get anyone on the web to do me a solid and post a link to a Fan project, and I can't get that out of BPro.

It seems your current issues are with the wildly successful marketing that has made sabermetrics somehow mainstream

Dude, you are inventing things. I have no problem with this. So, if you think it, throw it out your head.

, and with saying that PECOTA is "deadly accurate," which is obviously a matter of whether you compare it to other newer sophisticated projection systems or the average fans understanding of how to guess at the outcome of future baseball games.

Yes, I have a huge problem here. It's a lie. And talk about reframing an argument!

I mean, if PECOTA is deadly accurate, then Marcel is deadly accurate too. Is this what deadly accurate is supposed to mean?

***

And, I asked a few questions in my earlier posts, where I reached out to you and asked you what can we do here. I'm saying that I'm ready to move forward and do something constructive here.

Do you want to do something, or should we just keep with this back-and-forth?

Bakestar wrote:Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean that really got out of hand fast!

No, it's going to come to a resolution quickly. This is how things usually progress with me. Matt is a more challenging fellow. As soon as he answers this, then we'll see it was all worth it:

I'm willing to bridge whatever gap exists. My hand is extended. Tell me what you want me to do, and tell me what you are prepared to do, and let's do it.

Let's move forward, instead of standing still with all this yapping.

If he ignores it, well, then this will have been a missed opportunity.

FINISH HIM

In the end, I think we all know that this is going to have to be settled on the dance floor.

Clearly we don't agree on people's motives and everything so this is silly back and forth mostly.

It seems your current issues are with the wildly successful marketing that has made sabermetrics somehow mainstream

Dude, you are inventing things. I have no problem with this. So, if you think it, throw it out your head.

This was just supposed to mean that you don't like the marketing, not the effect. That should have been a comma or separate sentence.

I mean, if PECOTA is deadly accurate, then Marcel is deadly accurate too. Is this what deadly accurate is supposed to mean?

Yes, of course. Marcel will do way better than the average fan in Section 123, Row 4, Seat 5. It's a matter of perspective. It's not meant to kill anybody, so it's obviously not deadly, just a figured of speech.

And, I asked a few questions in my earlier posts, where I reached out to you and asked you what can we do here. I'm saying that I'm ready to move forward and do something constructive here.

Do you want to do something, or should we just keep with this back-and-forth?

I'm not the one to ask. I know that my beliefs about your attitude towards BP are not something many people disagree with in the sabermetric community, as far as I know. If you want to send an olive branch, don't do it to a contracted columnist. Talk to Kevin Goldstein who runs BP and is by far the most agreeable, open-minded guy you could possibly want there. If you want help with a Fan Project, ask him nicely and cut a deal if you can find something mutually beneficial. On my end, I think I'm even-handed and fair and will continue to cite what I think is better work and participate on your blog in relevant discussions to my interests. Sending an olive branch to me doesn't really do much, especially because I know about 1% of the back story and don't do anything wrong here.

I'm not the one to ask. I know that my beliefs about your attitude towards BP are not something many people disagree with in the sabermetric community, as far as I know.

People are free to interpret and believe whatever they want to believe. But, if I'm right there ready to answer any and all questions, there is no reason to have any kind of belief, other than what I say. There's no reason to interpret anything. Ask me whatever, I'll tell you the straight answer, and that's it.

Talk to Kevin Goldstein who runs BP and is by far the most agreeable, open-minded guy you could possibly want there. If you want help with a Fan Project, ask him nicely and cut a deal if you can find something mutually beneficial.

I already talked to Kevin about doing a Mike-Silva kind of thing. He said no, citing a potential conflict with other things they've got lined up. If I think of something else, I'll ask.

I don't need "help" with the Fan project, just a link. A link. I mean, can you do that for me? You would think I've done enough for the saber community that if I ask for a link that I would get it no? Why is it that every single site I ask a link for gives it to me, and BPro doesn't?

Anyway, thanks for the chat. I didn't realize how completely different we are, and yet I enjoy your work so very much.

Well. This didn't end quite the way page 7 would have me believe.

I'm not sure what just happened, but I'm reasonably sure it was shocking in some way.

mcare89 wrote:I'm not sure what just happened, but I'm reasonably sure it was shocking in some way.

The summary? To the extent I can interpret things properly:

From Matt's perspective: he was being fair and balanced. He's satisfied with how it turned out.

From my perspective: I was giving him the chances to concede where he should have, and find common ground otherwise, so we can move forward on something. I think it was a failure.

From your perspective: yada yada yada.

***

By the way, what's the general sabermetric view around here?

Most of us go by gut and generally grittiness of players.

I'd say it's pretty solid, but we make a lot of fart jokes and generally make fun of one another most of the time so it probably doesn't seem that way.

I'd guess 20% of people really don't care about sabermetrics at all. 70% get it enough to try and read what Matt and a few others write, but mostly defer to their conclusions because it's beyond us. A handful get into it. I'm in the group that it is beyond, so I cannot speak to the more contentious issues that the smart baseball people debate, except it's always disconcerting when mommy and daddy fight.