(02-13-2019 02:53 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [quote='_sturt_' pid='15902208' dateline='1550020740']
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.
So, if we tear away the terms that make you uncomfortable, and just start with the raw interest, "How do we best determine/discover/come to know which of 30 teams each season proved to be the best?" (... and, forgive me if some of this seems condescending b/c I'm sure you actually have realized all of this, but b/c of your protest, I'm going to walk through this just to affirm that there's no misunderstandings or disagreement on these basic things... )
You surely couldn't be blamed to start by testing the teams against each other according to
(a) a predetermined
standardized measure (eg, 3 outs each per inning, for 9 innings, and whoever is winning at that point is considered superior on that day's test)...
and (b) with all teams having conformed to the
standardized conditions (eg, rules of play, rules of how the roster is to be constructed, all teams conforming to a standardized formula for which other teams they will be tested against how many times, aka, schedule, etc).
And then, having used the measure for whatever predetermined number of games are to be considered standard, to institute some system for taking some number of the best teams from that initial series of tests (aka, "regular" season), and conducting an even more concentrated series of tests among just them, considering them as having qualified as being superior to others, and concurrently, the best candidates for evidencing themselves as being the most superior team.
Then, we essentially enlist the same principles of standardization in setting up that more concentrated series of tests (aka, "post" season), one which also presumes that the initial tests gave insight into which post-season teams were more likely than others to ultimately prove most superior (hence, the seeding process).
Scientific method is only "sacred" insomuch as it attempts to "prove" what is true, or at least, what is "most" true, or we might even say, "most likely to be" true.
And in the modern ages, we've come to understand that to be best concluded by introducing standardized testing procedures that take into consideration what is the core statement being tested (hypothesis), what are the conditions (antecedents), what are the treatments (independent variables), and then what is the standard of measurement, and to what degree is the thing being tested (dependent variable) affected (outcome)... which then allows us to give our best shot at removing bias and subjectivity, and instead, objectively arrive at a conclusion about the hypothesis.
(And if there's not great potential for bias and subjectivity in competitive team sports, it's hard to figure where you'd actually find it.)
So boiling it down, these principles of standardization... whether you feel comfortable with the term scientific method or not... are fundamental to rendering the best possible answer to the original question, ""How do we best determine/discover/come to know which of 30 teams each season proved to be the best?"
To the degree that you're willing to disregard standardization, you... logically (and I don't make the rules of logic, they just "are")... weaken the determination resulting from your chosen system.
That's why it can
objectively be said that MLB's system is
inferior to all other team sports... MLB doesn't apply an equal standard to all 30 teams.
But if one is hellbent on defending that difference in standardized conditions, then obviously there is reason to disregard scientific rigor.
If one is hellbent, instead, on wanting to see baseball get back to being equal to the other team sports, then the tipping point issue is that we have to get back to ONE standard that applies to all.
So, unify baseball, yes. Commissioner Manfred, you're right to pursue that.
And/but aren't we better off to unify baseball in a way that can also still achieve respect for those who favor one form of the game than the other?
The shallow, binary question doesn't allow us to do that. Someone wins, someone loses, and forever more.
How much better to recognize and embrace the alternative that allows everyone to, at least sometimes, get to enjoy the form of the game they favor...
all 90% of us who have a preference, whether the 65% or the 25%.
Why is it wrong to want the highest integrity in the way we decide the champion? It's not. And why is it wrong to respect others' preferences? It's not.
To the contrary, THIS, Home Manager Chooses is something all of us ought to be able to embrace, once we've thought it through.
Like anyone else, I had to come to be persuaded of that, and it took many years to get here.
Before it's too late, and New York imposes their mandate from on-high in 2022 (actually, we can be sure the actual arm-twisting among NL owners is already being tried), I hope us Joe and Jane Lunchbox fans can unite behind respectfully unifying baseball, and accordingly, HMC.
For all of us who've ascended to RUB HMC... cue the Walk This Way :) ... here's a graphic, fwiw... every cause needs a graphic.