(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.
And yet, ***THAT ALONE*** is sufficient for EITHER type of car's racing team to BE ABLE to ***LEGITIMATELY*** observe that the RACE ITSELF didn't test for which car is faster, in reality, but rather WHICH PROCESS/RULE was more likely to produce a winner... the "winner," notably, according to the parameters that have been set as defining "winner," which may be 50 miles or 500 miles, may be a regular oval, or may be a road race, or otherwise.
Again, I didn't invent scientific method. Argue with those who did.
(02-12-2019 12:32 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: The point being, some cars get an advantage in some ways but also a disadvantage in other ways. And you all but agree with this in your post above when you point out that a manager might not choose to use a DH because of a given game's circumstances.
Your (friendly?) insults aside, it's clear you agree with me.
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. And only because I genuinely have, no kidding, given a lot of time and thought and discussion over the course of 12 years to this topic. I'm satisfied that I'm right, not because I personally am some superior intellect that can talk down to people. I'm not. I have a terminal degree, yes, but I regularly tell people, I'm living proof that people of average intelligence can earn a terminal degree if they care enough and can focus. Rather, I'm satisfied that I'm right because I've participated in, literally, several hundred conversations by now, both online and in-person. It may end up coming across as condescending sometimes, but if you've ever spent 12 years focused on a particular issue, there comes a time where it's almost never that someone cites a line of rationale that you haven't already dealt with many times over, and you've long ago corrected yourself when you found that, indeed, someone exposed some flaw in your thinking that you hadn't figured out yet.
Kosher? Okay.
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?
If so, let's go down that road together then. (If not, again, feel free to correct me.) Let's back up and set the parameters, okay?
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).
Exact same treatment... 162 games... not 162 for some, 150 for others.
Exact same conditions... same rule book... not DH for some, pitchers bat for others.
Now, let's think about your proposal, and hear me out as I try to explain why one's interpretation of the EFFECTS doesn't somehow justify the unequal treatment or unequal conditions, and as you allege, somehow in turn, re-validate the results.
Here's one way to demonstrate that. Consider the fact that one can MAKE COGENT ARGUMENTS for why it is a positive for teams who only play 150 games AND ALSO negative... positive, they have 2 more opportunities a month to give their older players some better rest... negative, they get 2 fewer opportunities a month to give their younger players playing time.
THAT, however, doesn't affect the fact that THE TREATMENT IS DIFFERENT, AND THE DIFFERENCE ON ITS OWN makes the experiment inferior in integrity to an experiment that has no such difference.
If I'm lying, just pull out a 9th grade science textbook, quote it and expose me. I wasn't the one who came up with this stuff. I'm just repeating what we all were taught, and perhaps, taught repeatedly... and perhaps even, in turn, have taught others.
I'm unfortunately short of time this evening, but I'll get to the rest soon enough. Thanks for engaging the conversation. I'm not being facetious. I appreciate it.