24 Feb 2004 14:08:03
Lionel
[OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

[Follow-ups set to poster. Please email me with any discussion, rather
than discussing it in the group.]

As the operators of the anonymous services are refusing to respond to
complaints about spamming[0], flooding[1] & address-morphing[2] from
their users, it's time for us to deal with it at grassroots level.

If you wish to help, here's something you can do that will be *far* more
effective than complaining in the group:

* Write an email to the support address at your news provider &/or ISP,
asking them to block or de-peer the sources of this garbage. Here's a
sample letter. Please feel free to rewrite it your own style, but do try
to make sure that you get across all the technical details.

--------------------------8<-------------------------
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to complain about my favourite newsgroups [list newsgroups
here] being swamped in obscenity-laden spam from two anonymous news
servers (nym.alias.net & news.dizum.com). Users from these services are
flooding [this group / these groups] with this stuff, & complaints to
their abuse addresses have been totally ignored.
This abuse has been going on for more than six months, & has been
increasing steadily. I've included some recent examples at the end of
this email.

Please arrange to filter out, path-alias, or de-peer 'nym.alias.net' &
'news.dizum.com'.

Thanks,

[your name here]

[cut & paste a bunch of the worst nym.alias.net & news.dizum.com anon
garbage posts here. *IMPORTANT: INCLUDE ALL HEADERS!*]
--------------------------8<-------------------------

* You get bonus points for printing out your complaint & faxing or
snail-mailing it to your provider, rather than just emailing it, as hard
copy letters are taken much more seriously than emails at most
organisations.

* When you receive a response from your provider, PLEASE do not post
about it to this newsgroup, as the troll's most likely response will be
to greatly increase the amount of garbage here, not to mention the fact
that it'll cause yet another round of pointless arguments in the group.

* If your support person is unsympathetic, or doesn't appear to
understand the issue, please consider following up with a phone call, or
contact their supervisor. If you know anyone at a higher level at your
provider, by all means escalate the problem to them. Informing the sales
staff of the issue may be appropriate as well.

* What *would* be useful would be to email me (nop@alt.net) with the
responses from your providers (both positive & negative), as those
responses will make it easier for me to demonstrate a groundswell of
opinion amongst your news providers. This, in turn, will make it easier
for me to *privately* persuade other news providers to deal with these
rogue anon services.

* You are also very welcome to email me if you run into any queries
about the technical issues involved.

Thanks,

Lionel.


[0] Numerous (dozens in a short time period) near-identical posts from
the same person, xposted all over Usenet. This practice is banned by all
responsible providers.
[1] Attempts to flood a group into uselessness through sheer volume of
posts. This practice is banned by all responsible providers.
[2] The practice of changing the 'from' address frequently to screw up
peoples' kill-files. This practice is banned by all responsible
providers.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
|/ |/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------


24 Feb 2004 03:31:50
Ron Matthews
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Lionel <nop@alt.net > wrote:

> [Follow-ups set to poster. Please email me with any discussion,
> rather than discussing it in the group.]

Fuck you.

> As the operators of the anonymous services are refusing to
> respond to complaints about spamming[0], flooding[1] &
> address-morphing[2] from their users, it's time for us to deal
> with it at grassroots level.

Who is "us?"

> Please arrange to filter out, path-alias, or de-peer
> 'nym.alias.net' & 'news.dizum.com'.

So you feel that those who use these services legitimately should
be sacrificed so that you are not annoyed?

All you have to do is setup a moderated group and then nobody gets
hurt.

G'nite Wanda,

cordially, as always,

rm


23 Feb 2004 22:50:24
Kenny
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org > wrote in message
news:GAz_b.7807$Mo4.268916@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:
>
> > [Follow-ups set to poster. Please email me with any discussion,
> > rather than discussing it in the group.]
>
> Fuck you.

Wow. A thread about trolls and guess who is the first to respond. Talk about
having a guilty conscience.

Kenny




23 Feb 2004 21:13:43
Ima Pseudonym
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:50:24 -0500, "Kenny"
<kpoulin5DELETEME@netzero.com > wrote:

>Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org> wrote in message
>news:GAz_b.7807$Mo4.268916@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:
>>
>> > [Follow-ups set to poster. Please email me with any discussion,
>> > rather than discussing it in the group.]
>>
>> Fuck you.
>
>Wow. A thread about trolls and guess who is the first to respond. Talk about
>having a guilty conscience.

Give him a break. How often does he have such a good opportunity to
post on-topic, after all?



24 Feb 2004 04:07:47
Ron Matthews
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Kenny <kpoulin5DELETEME@netzero.com > wrote:
> Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org> wrote in message
> news:GAz_b.7807$Mo4.268916@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:
> >
> > > [Follow-ups set to poster. Please email me with any discussion,
> > > rather than discussing it in the group.]
> >
> > Fuck you.

> Wow. A thread about trolls and guess who is the first to respond.
> Talk about having a guilty conscience.

I guess I was the first to respond. Perhaps you should tell me
what I have to feel "guilty" about?

Calling a person a "troll" seems to be the last resort of those who
are continually bested in argument. Stat fans who isolate and
celebrate the contributions of the individual ahead of the team call
me a troll because I point out, correctly, that they don't
understand what team sport is all about. Pseudo stat fans call me
a troll because they seek approval from the stat fans. Neither
group understands that the credo of all team sport is "All for one
and one for all."

If calling somebody a "troll" is appropriate because they feel that
the players on the last team standing have proved that they are the
best, then I guess I am "guilty."

cordially, as always,

rm


24 Feb 2004 04:15:07
Ron Matthews
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Ima Pseudonym <akrasian@nospam.hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:50:24 -0500, "Kenny"
> <kpoulin5DELETEME@netzero.com> wrote:

> >Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org> wrote in message
> >news:GAz_b.7807$Mo4.268916@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > [Follow-ups set to poster. Please email me with any discussion,
> >> > rather than discussing it in the group.]
> >>
> >> Fuck you.
> >
> >Wow. A thread about trolls and guess who is the first to respond. Talk about
> >having a guilty conscience.

> Give him a break. How often does he have such a good opportunity to
> post on-topic, after all?

Maybe someday I will have the opportunity to say the same about
you.

cordially, as always,

rm


24 Feb 2004 13:08:01
Lee Harris
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Stat fans who isolate and
> celebrate the contributions of the individual ahead of the team call
> me a troll because I point out, correctly, that they don't
> understand what team sport is all about.


isnt baseball a team sport that can, however, be broken up into a series of
individual encounters. Isn't sabermetrics all about finding new ways to
quantify individual performances in a scientific way, and questioning
"accepted wisdom" on various aspects of the game. Obviously a team includes
a chemistry element and other non-quantifiable aspects, but why the need for
separate approaches? Surely the advancement of understanding about how
statistics can be used to quantify individual performance does not need to
be considered mutually exclusive to a "team" theory (whatever your theory on
that is)




24 Feb 2004 15:37:13
Roger Moore
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

"Lee Harris" <leeh@medphysics.leeds.ac.uk > writes:

>Isn't sabermetrics all about finding new ways to
>quantify individual performances in a scientific way, and questioning
>"accepted wisdom" on various aspects of the game.

No. Sabermetrics is (very roughly speaking) the application of the
scientific method to the study of sports. Attempting to separate out
individual contributions from the team context is one important part of
that, and an area that has gotten a lot of attention, but it's not the
whole thing by any means.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison


24 Feb 2004 10:52:49
Jeffrey Lichtman
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous

Ron Matthews wrote:
>
>>[Follow-ups set to poster. Please email me with any discussion,
>>rather than discussing it in the group.]
>
> Fuck you.

I'm curious as to why you are taking this personally. I had assumed the
OP referred, for example, to the mindless, puerile arguments about which
sport is most masculine. That thread is cross-posted to the same three
sports groups as this one. You may not think the course of action
proposed by Cody M. Stumpo is a good one, but he wasn't directing his
comments at you.

--
- Jeff Lichtman
Author, Baseball for Rookies
http://baseball-for-rookies.com/



24 Feb 2004 11:26:46
Craig Richardson
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:37:13 +0000 (UTC), raj@alumnae.caltech.edu
(Roger Moore) wrote:

>"Lee Harris" <leeh@medphysics.leeds.ac.uk> writes:
>
>>Isn't sabermetrics all about finding new ways to
>>quantify individual performances in a scientific way, and questioning
>>"accepted wisdom" on various aspects of the game.
>
>No. Sabermetrics is (very roughly speaking) the application of the
>scientific method to the study of sports. Attempting to separate out
>individual contributions from the team context is one important part of
>that, and an area that has gotten a lot of attention, but it's not the
>whole thing by any means.

It's just that baseball, because of the mano-a-mano quality of the
pitcher/batter confrontation, is particularly amenable to splitting
out individual contributions. And even then much more so for offense
than for defense - we're not even sure yet how much of pitching is
fielding and vice versa (this is possibly the most important currently
open sabermetric question, and it really has nothing at all to do with
quantifying individual performances - yet).

I'm not sure you can split out individual performances in a
continuous-flow sport like basketball or non-American football. I'm
also not sure it's a good idea - current "metrics" like goals,
field-goal percentage, and the like obscure truth as much or more than
they reveal it.

In short, RLM would have a fairly decent argument, if he stuck to
hockey. It's only by failing to understand the vastly different
nature of baseball and cricket that the argument becomes ludicrous in
application.

--Craig


--
Craig Richardson (Homepage <http://crichard-tacoma.home.att.netcolor=#0000FF> >)
"Rapid prototyping has enormous, obvious advantages beyond destroying
humanity as we know it" -Michal Ash in rec.arts.sf.written [04/1/26]


24 Feb 2004 14:59:09
M. Zaiem Beg
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Ima Pseudonym wrote:

- >>> > rather than discussing it in the group.]
- >>>
- >>> Fuck you.
- >>
- >>Wow. A thread about trolls and guess who is the first to respond. Talk about
- >>having a guilty conscience.
- >
- >Give him a break. How often does he have such a good opportunity to
- >post on-topic, after all?

I just like the topic of this thread. It reminds me of Howard Dean's
earlier campaign speeches. *YOU* have the power to get rid of the trolls.
*YOU* have the power to clean up r.s.b. *YOU* have the power to take back
what is yours. *YOU* have the power to run your own spreadsheet.

Just as long as the OP didn't get all crazy on us.

"And we're going to killfile RLM! And Tut! And Michael
Faulkner! It's the bit bucket for Johne! And Darrin! And Grossman! And
then we're going to killfile everything crossposted to
rec.sport.football.college! Yeeearrarggh!"

--
M. Zaiem Beg zbeg@iglou.com





24 Feb 2004 15:51:27
Dale J. Stephenson
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

"M. Zaiem Beg" <zbeg@iglou.com > writes:
[...]
> Just as long as the OP didn't get all crazy on us.
>
> "And we're going to killfile RLM! And Tut! And Michael
> Faulkner! It's the bit bucket for Johne! And Darrin! And Grossman! And
> then we're going to killfile everything crossposted to
> rec.sport.football.college! Yeeearrarggh!"
>
You must be a hate-mongering right-brained "personality", mocking the
troll-hating Faithful.

All we are saying, is give killfiles a chance.
--
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com


24 Feb 2004 17:21:47
Kenny
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org > wrote in message
news:n6A_b.4192$ee3.231124@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Kenny <kpoulin5DELETEME@netzero.com> wrote:
> > Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org> wrote in message
> > news:GAz_b.7807$Mo4.268916@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [Follow-ups set to poster. Please email me with any discussion,
> > > > rather than discussing it in the group.]
> > >
> > > Fuck you.
>
> > Wow. A thread about trolls and guess who is the first to respond.
> > Talk about having a guilty conscience.
>
> I guess I was the first to respond. Perhaps you should tell me
> what I have to feel "guilty" about?

I think you know...

Kenny




24 Feb 2004 22:22:16
Ron Matthews
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Jeffrey Lichtman <jefflichtman@baseball-for-rookies.com > wrote:
> Ron Matthews wrote:
> >
> >>[Follow-ups set to poster. Please email me with any discussion,
> >>rather than discussing it in the group.]
> >
> > Fuck you.

> I'm curious as to why you are taking this personally.

I'm curious (not really) as to why you think I am taking this
personally.

> I had assumed the OP referred, for example, to the mindless,
> puerile arguments about which sport is most masculine.

I don't care what he is referring to.

> That thread is cross-posted to the same three sports groups as
> this one. You may not think the course of action proposed by Cody
> M. Stumpo is a good one, but he wasn't directing his comments at
> you.

I say "Fuck you" to anybody who promotes censorship. Nothing
personal.

cordially, as always,

rm


24 Feb 2004 22:44:29
Ron Matthews
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Craig Richardson <crichard-tacoma@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> raj@alumnae.caltech.edu (Roger Moore) wrote:
> >"Lee Harris" <leeh@medphysics.leeds.ac.uk> writes:

> >>Isn't sabermetrics all about finding new ways to quantify
> >>individual performances in a scientific way, and questioning
> >>"accepted wisdom" on various aspects of the game.

> >No. Sabermetrics is (very roughly speaking) the application of
> >the scientific method to the study of sports. Attempting to
> >separate out individual contributions from the team context is
> >one important part of that, and an area that has gotten a lot of
> >attention, but it's not the whole thing by any means.

> It's just that baseball, because of the mano-a-mano quality of
> the pitcher/batter confrontation, is particularly amenable to
> splitting out individual contributions. And even then much more
> so for offense than for defense - we're not even sure yet how
> much of pitching is

Who is "we?"

> fielding and vice versa (this is possibly the most important
> currently open sabermetric question, and it really has nothing at
> all to do with quantifying individual performances - yet).

> I'm not sure you can split out individual performances in a
> continuous-flow sport like basketball or non-American football. I'm
> also not sure it's a good idea - current "metrics" like goals,
> field-goal percentage, and the like obscure truth as much or more than
> they reveal it.

> In short, RLM would have a fairly decent argument, if he stuck to
> hockey. It's only by failing to understand the vastly different
> nature of baseball and cricket that the argument becomes
> ludicrous in application.

No, you just don't get it. I'm not saying that the isolation of
individual performance cannot be attempted - what I am saying is
that a real sport fan would not attempt to isolate individual
performance in a team sport. The isolation of the individual in a
team sport can only be justified if you are willing to sacrifice
the ideal of sport itself. The isolation of the individual in a
team sport can only be justified if all you care about is winning.

But wait, all you do care about is winning. Winning is all that
matters and this simple premiss is at the foundation of the house
of cards that is stat fan anal-ysis. The whole notion of sport is
sacrificed in your model because it gets in the way of the pursuit
of the best stats. And behaviour that does not contribute to the
best individual stats - the very same behaviour that defines team
sport - is winnowed away as undesirable.

And that's why you're labelled, correctly, as a philistine. But
then I must be crazy because everybody knows that the only thing
that matters is winning. Winning isn't everything, it's the only
thing and only a "troll" would challenge this bit of wisdom.

cordially, as always,

rm


25 Feb 2004 06:01:03
Richard R. Hershberger
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Craig Richardson <crichard-tacoma@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message news:<8s8n30latpvh2n84s13ahqteeon9djap8c@4ax.com>...

> I'm not sure you can split out individual performances in a
> continuous-flow sport like basketball or non-American football. I'm
> also not sure it's a good idea - current "metrics" like goals,
> field-goal percentage, and the like obscure truth as much or more than
> they reveal it.
>
> In short, RLM would have a fairly decent argument, if he stuck to
> hockey. It's only by failing to understand the vastly different
> nature of baseball and cricket that the argument becomes ludicrous in
> application.

RLM would have a fairly decent argument with regard to baseball if he
didn't take it far beyond the point of reason. There is an extreme
sort of stat-head who really does regard baseball as a collection of
numbers, and who denies the existance of anything that can't be
measured. RLM is absolutely right that this sort of person is missing
out on much of the game (and is a bore, to boot). The two problems
with RLM's argument are that he fails to recognize that this sort of
extreme stat-head is actually quite rare, and that he makes the leap
from "there is more to baseball than stats" to "there are no stats in
{a true understanding of} baseball". This is itself an extreme
version and it forces him into any number of absurdities, such as his
claim that it is absolutely impossible to define the phrase "better
team" to apply to anything other than the result of a single game.
When I first started reading r.s.b., I in my innocence thought that
RLM had something interesting to say on the subject. I have since
realized that he actually only has a fairly trivial point, and that he
is willing to twist both fact and logic endlessly to maintain his
world view. This is why he is as much a bore as those extreme
stat-heads.

Richard R. Hershberger


25 Feb 2004 16:05:46
Roger Moore
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Craig Richardson <crichard-tacoma@worldnet.att.net > writes:

>I'm not sure you can split out individual performances in a
>continuous-flow sport like basketball or non-American football.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't think that you're likely to get
perfect results, but I know that there is work underway to separate out
individual contributions in basketball. It requires a much more detailed
record than the normal game aggregate statistics, but with really good
play-by-play data it seems to me that it's possible.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison


25 Feb 2004 16:14:50
Roger Moore
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) writes:

>RLM would have a fairly decent argument with regard to baseball if he
>didn't take it far beyond the point of reason. There is an extreme
>sort of stat-head who really does regard baseball as a collection of
>numbers, and who denies the existance of anything that can't be
>measured.

I'm not sure if I've ever met somebody who takes that extreme of a
position. I have seen posts from people who take the somewhat less
extreme position that it's useless talking about things that can't be
captured statistically. This less radical position would obviously be
easy to confuse with the more radical one, but it has the advantage of
being at least somewhat reasonable. I think, for instance, that it's
reasonable to ignore clutch hitting when doing player evaluations because
statistical tests show that it's indistinguishable from random noise.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison


25 Feb 2004 18:31:45
Dvd Avins
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

"Roger Moore" <raj@alumnae.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:c1ihlq$4k0$1@naig.caltech.edu...
> rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) writes:
>
> >RLM would have a fairly decent argument with regard to baseball if he
> >didn't take it far beyond the point of reason. There is an extreme
> >sort of stat-head who really does regard baseball as a collection of
> >numbers, and who denies the existance of anything that can't be
> >measured.
>
> I'm not sure if I've ever met somebody who takes that extreme of a
> position.

Having met Mike Gimbell, I don't know if I can make the same statement. I
think if you somehow managed to distract Mike from what he wants to say,
he'd acknowledge there's more to the game, but I'm not sure.




25 Feb 2004 14:45:16
Craig Richardson
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:05:46 +0000 (UTC), raj@alumnae.caltech.edu
(Roger Moore) wrote:

>Craig Richardson <crichard-tacoma@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>I'm not sure you can split out individual performances in a
>>continuous-flow sport like basketball or non-American football.
>
>I'm not so sure about that. I don't think that you're likely to get
>perfect results, but I know that there is work underway to separate out
>individual contributions in basketball. It requires a much more detailed
>record than the normal game aggregate statistics, but with really good
>play-by-play data it seems to me that it's possible.

Kind of like DA? I guess I'm just too fond of elegance. I like my
evaluation to have predictive value - even if we get e.g. "Armas
contributed 28% of the Bulls' offense...", I always see an implicit
"... but it would have been 36% if Beasley had any kind of post
presence". Or my Sunday soccer team, where I'm the #10, trying to
create an offense with two forwards in front of me lacking in pace,
instinct, and work-rate, and we didn't even much look like scoring -
but replace one of them with a fast, incisive, experienced forward,
and we could easily have been worth three, with me having a hand in
all of them. Even ignoring the "gell" effect, there are too many
nonlocal teammate influences to ever remove an individual's
contribution from context, even if we wanted to.

Now, if we're being snarky, we could observe that it might be much
easier to analyze individual performance in the NBA, since it seems
like there's just five simultaneous games of one-on-one going on out
there...

--Craig


--
Craig Richardson (Homepage <http://crichard-tacoma.home.att.netcolor=#0000FF> >)
"Rapid prototyping has enormous, obvious advantages beyond destroying
humanity as we know it" -Michal Ash in rec.arts.sf.written [04/1/26]


26 Feb 2004 04:11:26
Richard R. Hershberger
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

raj@alumnae.caltech.edu (Roger Moore) wrote in message news:<c1ihlq$4k0$1@naig.caltech.edu >...
> rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) writes:
>
> >RLM would have a fairly decent argument with regard to baseball if he
> >didn't take it far beyond the point of reason. There is an extreme
> >sort of stat-head who really does regard baseball as a collection of
> >numbers, and who denies the existance of anything that can't be
> >measured.
>
> I'm not sure if I've ever met somebody who takes that extreme of a
> position. I have seen posts from people who take the somewhat less
> extreme position that it's useless talking about things that can't be
> captured statistically. This less radical position would obviously be
> easy to confuse with the more radical one, but it has the advantage of
> being at least somewhat reasonable. I think, for instance, that it's
> reasonable to ignore clutch hitting when doing player evaluations because
> statistical tests show that it's indistinguishable from random noise.

I earlier characterized the extreme stat-head as "quite rare". I am
willing to emend that to "very rare".

Clutch hitting is not the best example of something that can't be
measured, because it can in fact be measured. Or at least it could if
it existed. (Or, more precisely, the ability to improve ones hitting
in a clutch situation could be measured if it existed.)

An example of what I was thinking of is the clubhouse cancer type of
player as contrasted with the clubhouse leader. If these types
actually exist in any significant form, they harm or help the play of
their teammates, so their quality doesn't show in their won stats. I
suppose that one could in principle measure the play of the team and
compare it to the comings and goings of the cancer/leader player, but
I doubt that it would be practicable to pick out the signal from the
noise. And yes, I have see people who deny the phenomenon largely on
the basis that it can't be measured.

Richard R. Hershberger


26 Feb 2004 14:43:13
Ron Matthews
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh@acme.com > wrote:

> An example of what I was thinking of is the clubhouse cancer type
> of player as contrasted with the clubhouse leader. If these
> types actually exist in any significant form, they harm or help
> the play of their teammates, so their quality doesn't show in
> their won stats.

What makes you think that a clubhouse cancer or leader has any
impact on statistics at all? A clubhouse cancer is the kind of
player that nobody wants to play withi for reasons that have
nothing to do with team success. Whether he influences anybody's
stats - for the good or bad - is immaterial. If you cared about
the players you wouldn't want them to play in a poisoned
environment even if it made their stats better.

cordially, as always,

rm


26 Feb 2004 10:32:06
Dale J. Stephenson
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) writes:
[...]
> An example of what I was thinking of is the clubhouse cancer type of
> player as contrasted with the clubhouse leader. If these types
> actually exist in any significant form, they harm or help the play of
> their teammates, so their quality doesn't show in their won stats. I
> suppose that one could in principle measure the play of the team and
> compare it to the comings and goings of the cancer/leader player, but
> I doubt that it would be practicable to pick out the signal from the
> noise. And yes, I have see people who deny the phenomenon largely on
> the basis that it can't be measured.
>
If the effect was significant enough, it could be picked out from the noise.
If it's not significant enough to be measured, it calls into question the
importance of the quality.

The other objection is that without some objective way of measuring it,
we really can't tell whether a specific player is actually an example of
the phenomenon. I don't like taking it on faith that Dick Allen was a
clubhouse cancer, and that should be held against him, when there's
no evidence his teammates' performance were hurt by his alleged bad
attitude, and specific testimony by teammates that he was a *good*
teammate.

I'm also not convinced that happy cows make better milk (or steak).
--
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com


26 Feb 2004 16:13:47
Tom MacIntyre
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:50:24 -0500, "Kenny"
<kpoulin5DELETEME@netzero.com > wrote:

>Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org> wrote in message
>news:GAz_b.7807$Mo4.268916@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:
>>
>> > [Follow-ups set to poster. Please email me with any discussion,
>> > rather than discussing it in the group.]
>>
>> Fuck you.
>
>Wow. A thread about trolls and guess who is the first to respond. Talk about
>having a guilty conscience.

Did you read what he had to say?

Tom


26 Feb 2004 16:27:58
Ron Matthews
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Dale J. Stephenson <steph@localhost.localdomain > wrote:

> I'm also not convinced that happy cows make better milk (or steak).

Ah, so the happiness of players should only be important if it
leads to better stats?

And who said you're a philistine?

cordially, as always,

rm


26 Feb 2004 12:13:02
Dale J. Stephenson
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org > writes:

> Dale J. Stephenson <steph@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> > I'm also not convinced that happy cows make better milk (or steak).
>
> Ah, so the happiness of players should only be important if it
> leads to better stats?
>
An ironic question, coming from a man who has polluted this newgroup
with obscenity and insults for years, while frequently changing name
and address to dodge killfiles. You are the clubhouse cancer of r.s.b.
And all these years you've managed to go without expressing any concern
for the happiness of players, so it's obviously not one of your prime
concerns.

But to answer your question, the happiness of major league players is
not my concern. I turn on my TV or go to the ballpark to see the way
they play, not to see the way they smile.

When my son plays T-ball I'll be more concerned for his happiness than
his production. Different level, different requirements.

> And who said you're a philistine?
>
A foul-mouthed troll who has spent much time berating others, but very
little time actually discussing baseball.

> cordially, as always,
>
A little bit more cordial than usual, apostle of ignorance.
--
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com


26 Feb 2004 19:42:45
Ron Matthews
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Dale J. Stephenson <steph@localhost.localdomain > wrote:
> Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org> writes:

> An ironic question, coming from a man who has polluted this
> newgroup with obscenity and insults for years, while frequently
> changing name and address to dodge killfiles. You are the
> clubhouse cancer of r.s.b.

Sorry sweetie. But r.s.bb. is not a club, as much as you would
like to think it is. And if it was a club I wouldn't be a fan.

Every time you open your mouth you take a huge shit on the sport of
baseball.

> And all these years you've managed to go without expressing any
> concern for the happiness of players, so it's obviously not one
> of your prime concerns.

Every time you celebrate the statistics of an individual in
isolation from his teammates you shit on the player, you shit on
his team and you shit on the sport. Not to mention the sport's
fans.

> But to answer your question, the happiness of major league
> players is not my concern. I turn on my TV or go to the ballpark
> to see the way they play, not to see the way they smile.

That's exactly right. You're simply a fan of the statistics and
you could care less about the players themselves.

> When my son plays T-ball I'll be more concerned for his happiness
> than his production. Different level, different requirements.

Requirements? Are you required to be concerned about your son's
happiness? Are you required to be concerned about a pro's stats?

> > And who said you're a philistine?

> A foul-mouthed troll who has spent much time berating others, but
> very little time actually discussing baseball.

Don't you mean "...very little time actually discussing statball[?]"

G'nite Wanda,

cordially, as always,

rm


26 Feb 2004 22:34:45
Shawn Morris
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous

Ron Matthews wrote:

> Dale J. Stephenson <steph@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>>Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org> writes:
>
>
>
>>An ironic question, coming from a man who has polluted this
>>newgroup with obscenity and insults for years, while frequently
>>changing name and address to dodge killfiles. You are the
>>clubhouse cancer of r.s.b.
>
>
> Sorry sweetie. But r.s.bb. is not a club, as much as you would
> like to think it is. And if it was a club I wouldn't be a fan.
>
> Every time you open your mouth you take a huge shit on the sport of
> baseball.
>
>
>>And all these years you've managed to go without expressing any
>>concern for the happiness of players, so it's obviously not one
>>of your prime concerns.
>
>
> Every time you celebrate the statistics of an individual in
> isolation from his teammates you shit on the player, you shit on
> his team and you shit on the sport. Not to mention the sport's
> fans.

Everytime the Hall of Fame enshrines a player instead of enshrining his
team they shit on his team and they shit on the sport. Not to mention
the sport's fans.

>
>
>>But to answer your question, the happiness of major league
>>players is not my concern. I turn on my TV or go to the ballpark
>>to see the way they play, not to see the way they smile.
>
>
> That's exactly right. You're simply a fan of the statistics and
> you could care less about the players themselves.
>
>
>>When my son plays T-ball I'll be more concerned for his happiness
>>than his production. Different level, different requirements.
>
>
> Requirements? Are you required to be concerned about your son's
> happiness? Are you required to be concerned about a pro's stats?
>
>
>>>And who said you're a philistine?
>
>
>
>>A foul-mouthed troll who has spent much time berating others, but
>>very little time actually discussing baseball.
>
>
> Don't you mean "...very little time actually discussing statball[?]"
>
> G'nite Wanda,
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm


26 Feb 2004 22:42:42
Ron Matthews
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

Shawn Morris <smorris@verio.net > wrote:

> Everytime the Hall of Fame enshrines a player instead of
> enshrining his team they shit on his team and they shit on the
> sport. Not to mention the sport's fans.

Not at all. But then again, the HoF honours the player, not the
player's stats. The so-called VHOF honours the player's stats and
in so doing takes a huge shit on the sport, its fans and its
players.

Please trim your posts.

cordially, as always,

rm


26 Feb 2004 14:44:08
Craig Richardson
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

On 26 Feb 2004 04:11:26 -0800, rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R.
Hershberger) wrote:

>An example of what I was thinking of is the clubhouse cancer type of
>player as contrasted with the clubhouse leader. If these types
>actually exist in any significant form, they harm or help the play of
>their teammates, so their quality doesn't show in their won stats. I
>suppose that one could in principle measure the play of the team and
>compare it to the comings and goings of the cancer/leader player, but
>I doubt that it would be practicable to pick out the signal from the
>noise. And yes, I have see people who deny the phenomenon largely on
>the basis that it can't be measured.

I'm kind of agnostic on this one. I have no doubt that it exists,
because an asshole player-coach is about 60% of the reason I quit
baseball, and I have no doubt he had an effect on the team's chemistry
and morale. But the effects weren't consistent - not everybody hated
his guts (the ex-military firemen barely noticed). And his presence
wasn't a total negative - I was a noticeably better fielder when I
left due to the extra infield practice he "gave" me. And I'm sure
that there exist teams that would have been better off for his
presence.

So I file it under "we don't know, we can't know, and we shouldn't
make any decisions based on it". It's one of a myriad of effects that
influence the statistics, but not in any way that is meaningful as far
as analysis is concerned. For all that its effect is real, so was
Cerrano's voodoo, and that wasn't predictive, either.

--Craig


--
Craig Richardson (Homepage <http://crichard-tacoma.home.att.netcolor=#0000FF> >)
"Rapid prototyping has enormous, obvious advantages beyond destroying
humanity as we know it" -Michal Ash in rec.arts.sf.written [04/1/26]


27 Feb 2004 00:53:52
Richard R. Hershberger
Re: [OT Troll] What *YOU* can do to help get rid of the anonymous troll.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:42:45 GMT, Ron Matthews <whoknows@whocares.org >
wrote:

>Every time you celebrate the statistics of an individual in
>isolation from his teammates you shit on the player, you shit on
>his team and you shit on the sport. Not to mention the sport's
>fans.

But since you are the only "true fan" in existence, you are the only
one being shit upon. Let's take a poll: who is in favor of shitting
on rlm?