teams as organisms stats or stats was re jack morris note i m not posting this as part of an argument with roger meynard but as an independent sort of thread i do actually quote some things that roger meynard wrote but it might be better to think of this as sampling his post in the hip hop sense because it fits in with what i want to say maynard ramsey cs laurentian ca roger maynard writes but the point is that the only decision making pro cess used to determine the best is the score of the game and it re lates to the teams not the individual players there is no method inherent in baseball of comparing individual performances and that is how it should be because after all baseball is a team game there s an interesting parallel between this way of viewing a baseball team and some people s conception of a biological organism in the biology context we would very likely read fitness for the score of the game and organisms for teams how we interpret players is trickier but either organs or genes might seem reasonable choices depending on what point we were trying to make a genes interpretation actually might be really interesting in this case but that would be a different and probably longer post if however we take the organ view then our knowledge of biology should make us pause before we start saying things like species x is more fit than species y because of a better organ z given what we know about the interdependence of organs we would often be suspicious of such claims but note that this type of argument is quite often made when you map species x onto humans and organ z onto brain on the other hand some statements of this kind do seem more reasonable than others as far as we can test them e g brain above might be more reasonable than pancreas assuming no gross pathology particularly if species y is a primate even when you make such statements you should be concerned with the functioning of the whole organism and the possibility that one organ might be more crucial for one species and a second organ in another not to mention the possibility that no organ is particularly crucial in some third species however if we are non vitalists with any kind of reductionsit streak we will want to say that an organism is not some completely magical unanalyzable whole but an intriguing process made up of various subprocesses that interact in ways that are potentially observable some of these processes might be localized to particular organs while others may be distributed across multiple organs in a way this is just like a baseball team except that i think it is pretty clear that the processes and interactions involved in baseball are much simpler and less numerous than in most organisms to say that one player is better than another is to be able to say ab solutely that player a s team would have played better with player b in their lineup sheer speculation impossible to ascertain one thing that is quite difficult about baseball is that perfectly controlled experiments are sometimes very tough to do but of course this has never stopped researchers from doing the best they can and sometimes deriving very powerful conclusions even in the absence of certainty most of this goes far beyond sheer speculation but even sheer speculation can motivate further interesting research if you want to select a group of statistics and claim that clemens has done better than another pitcher with those statistics as a criteria then fine in this cases we re seeing the word statistics means summary of observed events where the events themselves can be viewed as the output of some process and possibly inputs for other processes thus if we have any valid notion of how the processes are put together into the functioning organism data in the form of statistics might give us a basis to test particular hypotheses but you have to be able to prove that those statistics measure the individual s contribution to winning the ws because that is the only measure of best that has any meaning in the context of baseball this statement brings us back to the concept of fitness again fitness is defined in terms of both an organism and its environment you might be fit in one situation and not another moving to baseball it is clear that each team spends the entire season in an environment including all the other teams in the league in at least a nominal sense the division winners are the fittest teams in the league in that they on average had better fitness scores than any of their competing opponennts but in a real sense there is a fairly large random component in the performance of each team that is difficult if not impossible to account for in terms of factors intrinsic to or interesting for baseball the same is true in biology but here is also no direct biological equivalent of the world series in basebal in the world series the random component may be greatly magnified by the small number of games that are played and both teams suddenly experience huge changes from the environement where they were originally successful it might be fun to watch but it s unclear what it all really means now just one more un related point i have yet to see that any of you can predict a ws winner with any greater accuracy than jeanne dixon on the other hand you have seen some of us who can predict the outcome of the divisional races better than a random assignment of teams to finishes and maybe some of us e g me who can do this better than the other participants in this forum on a regular basis but this is probably only due to the fact that a game schedule gives you a little hope that bad hops aren t the only difference between the winners and the losers moreover you ve had the opportunity to see some analysis of the world series situation that makes the strong claim that nobody can predict the ws winner with reliably greater accuracy than a coin biased only to reflect the well known home vs road effect on winning percentage the stats are a nice hobby and that s about it there is no new knowledge being produced since stats are summaries of events it s true that if you know the events you can derive the stats but if somebody is trying to understand the process behind the stats then the stats produce new knowledge and some of this might even be reliable repeatable and useful speaking of which i should get back to producing knowledge in a different field that is of course if i can produce knowledge even though i m relying on stats to do it jking
