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.Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
I asked you to clarify TWICE.
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.
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))"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°.).
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.