Moneyball 2011: Is politically incorrect the new market inefficiency?

Including some of the guys on my list, too, probably. That said, I’ll take the bright ones first please.

But there’s no reason to even bother rebutting it.

On balance, I think recommending this post is the correct thing to do. I’ll leave it at that and pull a McGwire.

and at times you have put people in spots where they really disagreed with something you said, but were unwilling to engage in a back-and-forth because of the politics ban.

And if one were to look at the vast majority of these times, someone upthread — someone who I am responding to — had broken that ban first with either loaded language, innuendo, or an outright blatant use of intrinsic proper names and specifically identifiable people/ideologues.

Now, I am fully aware that two wrongs do not make a right so if anyone takes issue, then please, flag away when I do this. But in doing so, I would hope that the original rule-breaking incident that provoked my impulsive ass to respond would draw similar flagage. To paraphrase Billy Joel from Goodnight Saigon: “Yes we should all go down together.”

Honestly, I appreciate the feedback

Some speech is harmless. If you take offense to everything said by anyone you wont lead a very happy life. Seriously how could you wake up in the morning knowing the countless numbers of people that think differently than you?

In direct response to the subject of this thread you called them willfully ignorant. You basically announced your opinion on this matter and branded all who disagree ignorant.

Go back and read this chain of posts and tell me you think you didn’t go too far. I accept that I disagree with you and it is great that you and I can discuss baseball here on AN because we would probably never interact otherwise. But I take offense to how you treat other people and other opinions at times. Your post here is a clear example. Why not make your point without putting others down?

He thinks it isn’t relevant. Or he doesn’t care. Is everything relevant? Does everything have to be important? Is there anything you don’t care about?

Do you just need to label people and ideas so you can discount them? What’s the deal?

He (and I) don’t believe it means anything in the scope of baseball. It may mean something in the scope of politics, but we’re not supposed to talk about politics. I don’t think you understand that some people just don’t give a crap about what he said. At all. It’s not willful ignorance because we’re not ignoring it for the sake of avoiding dealing with them; it’s indifference because we genuinely don’t care.

THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON YOU – Tutu-late", JUST A RANT THAT YOU TRIGGERED

Why is it that stats people are always called to the carpet to back up their assertions, but people who disagree get to play the “because I sez so” card? Seriously?

I understand if you are talking about painting a wall. Some like green, some like white, some like a nice textured mauve with some sponge paint undertones – that’s a matter of opinion. But baseball, more and more, has less to do with opinion than it has to do with evaluation and analysis. It is certainly legitimate to challenge someone on the basis of the underlying system of evaluation. You would need to promote a fair and well grounded argument, but it is appropriate.

What is not appropriate is to say that “stats don’t matter ’cause I say so.” This is what you do when you fail to back up your argument with anything more than “There’s more than stats” or “It’s just my opinion.” You need to back up the argument. You are simply being held to the same standard that other debaters are being held to. This is common practice in scientific, legal, medical, engineering and dozens of other professions where rigorous examination of data is critical.

While I may not agree that AN should be merely a place to “rigorously examine the data” (for instance I think the anti-Custian fanpost is OK with me), when you start engaging a person who is willing to source their arguments and you are not, you will always look weaker in the argument.

Just like the argument on “Willfully ignorant.” I think common usage would be “someone who knows something, but chooses not to use that information in future considerations because the information is inconvenient.” In my opinion PT was wrong because Bed was not being willfully ignorant ’cause the information is not inconvenient to him – he believes it has no bearing on baseball ability.

But PT is correct in a meta sense – the type of opinions Scott is broadcasting are more harmful than standard “political views” in that they suggest an illegitimate presidency. Others have said, correctly I believe, that this is similar to suggesting Bush and the Republicans “rigged” his elections. Both are borderline treacherous statement, not merely espousing a difference of opinion. Speech like this, whether on the left or right, is inflammatory – literally like yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie house. I think it is an ideology independent decision. You can’t make public statements as to the authenticity of the Presidency without expecting repercussions – from the left and right.

With that understanding it then becomes hard to argue that you “don’t care” because you are saying that you don’t care that there are potential traitors on our team. Which is probably not what Bed meant. Think of it this way, if a baseball player went on at length about 911 Truth in an interview, would you have a problem with him on the team? He would be espousing a belief that seriously considers the events of 9/11 an inside job and implicates the Bush/Cheney administration in the deaths of thousands of Americans. Would it be all right to have that person on the A’s if they hit well enough and didn’t play RF like Jack Cust? I bet you would not want that person.

So (finally) PT sees someone diminishing a major issue to the point that it is a minor issue (i.e. “he’s just saying his opinion”) and can be reconciled to your point of view. It is this reduction he has a problem with (IMHO). This is why he says “Willfully Ignorant.” Perhaps, “Willfully Reductionist” is more appropriate. And it cannot be construed as calling someone ignorant which is a different thing entirely.

</pouring gas on the fire>