Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Nick starts from the assumption that only that which can be proven to be true, and by statistics, matters. So he's narrowly defined his own universe. If you reject that assumption, which I do, his arguments fall apart. The real debate here is about the defining assumptions, not particular implementations.
|
wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.