Swampboy posted:SanDiegoRealist posted:Swampboy posted:The fact that eyewitness testimony can often be wrong does not mean courts shouldn't admit it at all.
The fact that subjective insights and observations can often be wrong does not mean baseball executives should banish them altogether from their consideration.
A wiser approach is to attempt to understand the value and limits of each kind of information.
Exactly! Which is why the probative weight (value) of eye witness testimony is much less than objective evidence that can be scientifically proven (DNA). This supports 2020's and 2019's arguement. This case has been decided in favor of the plaintiffs, 2020 and 2019!
Exactly wrong.
Some kinds of eyewitness testimony are notoriously unreliable; others can be highly reliable.
Witnesses trying to describe and identify a subject seen only briefly and in surprising circumstances can report wildly different and conflicting information.
However, the eyewitness testimony of a trained, experienced, dispassionate observer, such as a police officer describing what he saw, heard and smelled in the course of a drunk driving arrest can often make the difference in obtaining a conviction.
Context and credibility matter.
When Buck O'Neil watched Bo Jackson's first batting practice with the Royals and told a colleague he had only heard the ball come off the bat with the same sound from two other hitters--Babe Ruth and Josh Gibson--he provided rare historical perspective beyond the grasp of technology about Bo Jackson's value.
You would have blown him off because you don't have any bat sound metrics and you think if it's not in your toolkit, it must not be worth knowing.
I continue to maintain that some observations in some circumstances can complement the objective information available in determining the potential of players: how quickly and how well they make decisions, whether a gifted athlete will put in the work to develop and maintain his gifts, how well a player reacts and improvises, how natural and coordinated movements are, how badly a player wants to play and win, how a player handles adversity, whether a player has physical and mental toughness to endure an MLB season, how coachable a player is, whether a player has a high baseball IQ.
You do not, and that makes you an extremist who willingly blinds himself to the possibility that anything he cannot put in a spreadsheet might be worth knowing.
And by the way, what kind of kangaroo court do you think you're running where you get to appoint yourself judge, argue the case for one of the sides, and peremptorily cut off the discussion?
Let me close by noting the irony of the Michael Lewis citation by one of the parties you favor. Go back and read Moneyball. Billy Beane is the player your methodology picks based on metrics alone. His minor league roommate Lenny Dykstra is the player you'd pass on because his confidence, mental focus, and competitive zeal don't have numbers attached to them.
I was joking about deciding the case, swampboy. Simmer down big fella.