(02-12-2019 08:19 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:32 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Lucky for you I'm a nuclear power plant safety inspector.

Your analogy is poor, because it allows only for improvement in one half of the field, and no other effect. It might be more appropriate if you said "change a rule that makes half the cars go faster on straights but slower on curves, and half the cars vice versa", or something like that (I'm not a NASCAR expert).

To the contrary, my analogy DIDN'T specify improvement/advantage for one half of the field.

You just read that part into it. It wasn't there. Re-read.

I purposely ONLY said one half of the cars have a rule... which applies here... and the other half do not... which applies here.

It's EXACTLY the situation.

Yet you advocate for it to continue! If you want to be able to continue using the DH, frequently or infrequently, you are promoting a "solution" that perpetuates that perceived imbalance. It's really not that far from what I said previously: It's perfectly acceptable to have a championship that evaluates both the teams and the method of play, whether or not you can separate the contribution of each.

Quote:Again, I didn't invent scientific method. Argue with those who did.

I think you need to be careful using this term. I'd argue that a baseball (or any other sport) season is more trial and error method than scientific method. No one is putting forth and testing a specific hypothesis. At most, we ask the question "who is best" and then conduct a season of trial and error to see what happens. And, as I noted, I'm perfectly comfortable adding another question: What is the best approach - DH or not? Now, if you wanted to formulate a hypothesis, say, "Having a DH is better than not (or vice versa)," I'd say we've got the correct setup for that one!

That aside, I'm not sure why you insist on scientific rigor here. The baseball season, as entertainment, doesn't have to be scientifically justified.

Quote:You realize, right(?), that scientific method requires that, in order to receive valid results, we test the subjects (teams, in this case) that have, in every plausible way, been exposed to the exact same treatment (season of games, in this case) under the exact same conditions (rules, in this case).

It is absolutely necessary for good science. It's not really what the scientific method requires, but that is sort of neither here nor there because, again, we're really not applying the scientific method to a baseball season. And it's not science; it doesn't need to be. It's acceptable and not at all unprecedented to test more than just the best team.

Quote:So, if I'm understanding this part of your response... correct me if I'm missing it please... you're saying that because half of the cars have to abide by the rule and the other half do not have to abide by the rule, that then, BECAUSE THE EFFECTS of having or not having the rule can be interpreted as positive in some respects and negative in others for both sides... that in turn justifies/validates the difference in the rule. Correct?

No, I'm (still) saying your analogy is inapt. What you really have is a rule that helps some cars/teams sometimes, and other cars/teams at other times.

To continue the auto racing analogy, in many forms of racing it is very difficult to tell what is more important: The vehicle or the driver. (Applies to horse racing as well.) Even in NASCAR, which has very similar vehicles and quite a bit of regulation, the setup of each vehicle can be somewhat different based on the teams'/drivers' choices. We don't make every racer drive an identically built and setup car, and we accept race results as credible.

*************

Sidebar...

Quote:First, I make a conscious effort to stick with substance. Forgive me if I seem like I'm attacking/challenging/insulting you as a person. That's not my intent. My intent is only to attack/challenge/insult the counterpoints raised.

Not sure how to square this with...

Quote:God help us that you don't work in a pharmaceutical lab.

So that was sincere?! Look, I appreciate your attempt to clarify here, and I don't believe you intend any malice. I am not offended or hurt (it's a sports message board for Pete's sake). But as point of clarification this IS condescending and unfortunately you're talking down from a pretty shaky ladder. You may be convinced you're right but you haven't done a very good job convincing anyone in this thread as far as I can tell. Your arguments are often contradictory and not well supported. It's an interesting subject and entertaining to debate. Maybe you have some data and/or analysis to support your points? If you've got more to offer I'd be happy to see it, but I think we've exhausted the talking points that are currently on the board.