<< <i>Moi? I'm still waiting for Ryan Howard to turn into Dave Kingman.
Steve >>
Didn't you watch the World Series?
Winpitcher, you were one of the biggest 'clutch' bandwagon jumpers on him.
He isn't at Kong yet, but he will arrive there(soon). It is going to blow for the Phillies when they are paying him 19 million at that point too.
If he ends up not going down to Kong, that is fine, and I will be happy for Philly fans. But again, it is a public service announcement for those thinking he will end up with all time standing, or in the HOF. Buy his stuff accordingly.
Regardless of how his career transpires, he is just another in a long line of examples that show the foolishness of the clutch argument. Just like Arod who threw egg on the face of all the people who believed the opposite with him, LOL. I believe you were one of those guys
1) Someone here needs to read Karl Popper, and acquaint themselves with the notion of falsifiability. The idea here is that any 'theory' (using the term loosely) that cannot be falsified should not be taken seriously. An example would be astrology. Since every astrologer has about 1000 possible interpretations of Nostradamus' quatrains ready to go at any given time, nobody can ever prove that his predictions are wrong- they're always just 'misinterpreted'. Ditto for psychoanalysis, and to a lesser extent Marxism. Anytime someone points to something that brings these ideas into doubt, the proponent changes the definition of the theory being questioned.
Same for this 'clutch' nonsense. Could it be that certain players are 'clutch'? Of course. Not even Skin/Hoop would argue this. What's maddening are the arguments in favor of it. If Ryan Howard hits a ball 500 feet in the bottom of the 9th, he's clutch. If he strikes out, then 'it just wasn't his night'. Using this logic the 'clutch' notion cannot be falsified, because everything he does that ISN'T clutch is dismissed from the discussion.
Here are the facts:
1) The idea of being clutch is only interesting if it predicts future behavior. Otherwise it's not a characteristic of a ball player, but rather a mere description of a past event that involved said ballplayer.
2) Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has ever been able to measure this effect, and therefore it's entirely reasonable-- and, in fact, rational-- to assume that it does not exist.
3) The burden of proof here is on those who insist this trait DOES exist. Just as I cannot prove there aren't ETs surveying Earth from flying saucers, or prove that there isn't a God, I can't prove that 'clutch' doesn't exist. All I can do is tell you that there's no valid evidence in favor of this idea. Whether you want to accept or reject that, I guess, is up to each individual, although I'll take this time to remind everyone here that the kind of fuzzy thinking that allows for people to believe in things for which there is no evidence is one of human beings' most embarrassing (albeit persistent) characteristics.
This was a fun thread. Yes, Objectivity is my fourth name. I gave myself some self imposed time outs when I spent too much time on here. Some may say it is time for another, LOL...but not yet, not yet.
No, Baseball and I have debated several times. I like to argue...but am not crazy! >>
It's true we've debated many times about many things. And yes Objectivity does like to argue (as do I sometimes). The jury's still out on that last part. >>
If you are not at least a little crazy, then you aren't normal!
One thing I disagree with about Baseball's quote is the he says he likes to argue "sometimes". I think we have a different definition of sometimes.
Comments
<< <i>Moi? I'm still waiting for Ryan Howard to turn into Dave Kingman.
Steve >>
Didn't you watch the World Series?
Winpitcher, you were one of the biggest 'clutch' bandwagon jumpers on him.
He isn't at Kong yet, but he will arrive there(soon). It is going to blow for the Phillies when they are paying him 19 million at that point too.
If he ends up not going down to Kong, that is fine, and I will be happy for Philly fans. But again, it is a public service announcement for those thinking he will end up with all time standing, or in the HOF. Buy his stuff accordingly.
Regardless of how his career transpires, he is just another in a long line of examples that show the foolishness of the clutch argument. Just like Arod who threw egg on the face of all the people who believed the opposite with him, LOL. I believe you were one of those guys
1) Someone here needs to read Karl Popper, and acquaint themselves with the notion of falsifiability. The idea here is that any 'theory' (using the term loosely) that cannot be falsified should not be taken seriously. An example would be astrology. Since every astrologer has about 1000 possible interpretations of Nostradamus' quatrains ready to go at any given time, nobody can ever prove that his predictions are wrong- they're always just 'misinterpreted'. Ditto for psychoanalysis, and to a lesser extent Marxism. Anytime someone points to something that brings these ideas into doubt, the proponent changes the definition of the theory being questioned.
Same for this 'clutch' nonsense. Could it be that certain players are 'clutch'? Of course. Not even Skin/Hoop would argue this. What's maddening are the arguments in favor of it. If Ryan Howard hits a ball 500 feet in the bottom of the 9th, he's clutch. If he strikes out, then 'it just wasn't his night'. Using this logic the 'clutch' notion cannot be falsified, because everything he does that ISN'T clutch is dismissed from the discussion.
Here are the facts:
1) The idea of being clutch is only interesting if it predicts future behavior. Otherwise it's not a characteristic of a ball player, but rather a mere description of a past event that involved said ballplayer.
2) Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has ever been able to measure this effect, and therefore it's entirely reasonable-- and, in fact, rational-- to assume that it does not exist.
3) The burden of proof here is on those who insist this trait DOES exist. Just as I cannot prove there aren't ETs surveying Earth from flying saucers, or prove that there isn't a God, I can't prove that 'clutch' doesn't exist. All I can do is tell you that there's no valid evidence in favor of this idea. Whether you want to accept or reject that, I guess, is up to each individual, although I'll take this time to remind everyone here that the kind of fuzzy thinking that allows for people to believe in things for which there is no evidence is one of human beings' most embarrassing (albeit persistent) characteristics.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
No, Baseball and I have debated several times. I like to argue...but am not crazy!
<< <i>
<< <i>Ha.
No, Baseball and I have debated several times. I like to argue...but am not crazy! >>
It's true we've debated many times about many things. And yes Objectivity does like to argue (as do I sometimes). The jury's still out on that last part. >>
If you are not at least a little crazy, then you aren't normal!
One thing I disagree with about Baseball's quote is the he says he likes to argue "sometimes". I think we have a different definition of sometimes.