I'm glad you've seen the light and finally agreed with something I never said.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Congratulations on losing an argument with your own strawman.
Printable View
I'm glad you've seen the light and finally agreed with something I never said.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Congratulations on losing an argument with your own strawman.
Sudden Death the winner goes on the looser is done for the season.works for me.SD thru the dice and came up craps if they won a few more during the season it would of mattered not any.Boston lucked out true but won enough to hold out same.:)
30/30. Just because a manager won the World Series doesn't mean that he never made a bad decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
I asked you to clarify TWICE.Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
When you say that managers choose the best player for a situation every time and that it is ridiculous to claim otherwise, you ARE saying that they can never make a wrong decision. I didn't think that anybody was crazy enough to actually believe that, which is why I questioned it, and then sensed that your answer was sarcasm, so asked again, and after two times, I didn't think you'd keep up the sarcasm.
:eek:Quote:
30/30. Just because a manager won the World Series doesn't mean that he never made a bad decision.
That is again a subjective statement & incorrect,sorry,unless you believe that winning the World Series is not the aim of a Team & Managers??
.Fact is if you win the WORLD SERIES,then the manager's decisions were TOTALLY right because every decision affects the players,the play that it induced & thus the result,& by extrapolation over time & space affect every action after the primal event.( or in layman's terms the 1st choice which was the Day 1 Line-up & Starting Pitcher)
By common logic winning the World Series is the goal thus achieving that GOAL then EVERY pre-made decision were CORRECT & ipso facto ALL his decision made were CORRECT.
Thus by simple definition,a manager winning the World Series never made a bad decision (both mathematically & philosophically ).It is the basis of De Bono's PMI analysis or standard Cost Benefit Analysis!
In a sociological context a Baseball Manager's makes a Decision Under Uncertainty & thus shows that a primary Decision is the basis of all subsequent decisions as described by Pascal.To fully understand one must also take into consideration Game Theory
as shown by von Neumann and Morgenstern,that a primary action affects a subsequent action & ALSO INCLUDE the reaction of the opponent (see Schelling,Robert Aumann , Nash*, Selten and Harsanyi who all won Nobel Prizes!)
For more information please read Jung,Marcin, Ulam, Fermi, Von Neumann,Metropolis,Myers (Introduction to Type: A description of the theory and applications of the Myers-Briggs type indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto Ca.,) 1962,Weisner,Durkheim,Plato,Socrates,Humphrey** or even Keynesian management theory -WHO ALL state when a goal is achieved then the pre-determined decision making process is automatically correct...sorry ;)
Unfortunately you are simply confirming Plous' cognitive bias which distinguishes that the general time line that every decision affects every subsequent action & thus every subsequent decision BUT most humans ignore & use Selective search for evidence ( Confirmation bias in psychology) &
(S. Plous The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making,pp 232,1st Edition (Mcgraw-Hill, 1993))Quote:
"We tend to be willing to gather subjective facts that support certain conclusions but disregard objective facts that support different conclusions."
*btw John Nash, was the subject of the 2001 film "A Beautiful Mind" with Russell Crowe,good film although slightly simplistic.
** excellent analysis of decision making in a multi universe! ;)
btw ltt is NOT "being sarcastic" but IS using classical business studies/economics,neo-classical mathematical analysis & reacting to your constant (derogatory ?) usage of superlatives ,when he (& others) have tried to explain that comparatives between objective facts/stats & subjective "leverage" analysis is at best TOTALLY subjective & unprovable & at worst, mathematically, INCORRECT.(As in mathematics one compares objective equitable numerics NOT subjective statistics°.)Quote:
.
When you say that managers choose the best player for a situation every time and that it is ridiculous to claim otherwise, you ARE saying that they can never make a wrong decision. I didn't think that anybody was crazy enough to actually believe that, which is why I questioned it, and then sensed that your answer was sarcasm, so asked again, and after two times, I didn't think you'd keep up the sarcasm.
It is a constant mis-understanding when one starts a subjective thread on a "single" event & then one tries to expand it or to alter the original debate.Just a (possibly biased) opinion.