THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I guess if I tell someone I’m going to cut their throat, I’m not explicitly threatening to kill them. Or if I threaten to hit you over the head with a tire iron repeatedly - again, the word kill doesn’t appear in the sentence. But if you shove a tennis ball down someone’s throat, I fail to see what else is going to happen. Typical human windpipe is, what something close to an inch in diameter? You’d split the damn thing just trying to shove a ball in there.

I mean, watch the video:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen09/news/story?id=4468762

It’s not like she just said it once, she continued to shout that sort of thing. I don’t think it’s absurd to consider that threatening language.

Serena said in the post game interview that she misheard what the linesman had supposedly related to the chair judge, and that she does not know what was actually said (i.e., whether it contained the phrase “kill you").  I watched this as well as Serena’s’ previous outburst live as they happened.  As far as I know, there is no other evidence that the line judge said those words to the chair judge, and no evidence therefore that she was lying, or even mistaken.  I have not read all the news about this event, however, so I may not have the whole story.

And… I’m trying to come up with another sport in which Serena would not have been immediately ejected for what she actually said to the line judge.  I can’t think of one.

I’m with Colin… death is a logical result of having a tennis ball in your throat.  And as for the restaurant issue… if you hadn’t ordered your meal yet and your friend said that, I’d politely tell the waitress/busboy that you’ve decided to go somewhere else.  No matter how nice the restaurant is, if your friend says something like that to the staff, there’s a very good chance you’re going to have something unpleasant done to your food.

As far as the retelling of what someone said, sometimes I think it’s a matter of how people process it in their heads.

Not consciously, but I usually try to remember what a person actually said. My wife hears something, processes what she thinks it means, and then repeats back her understanding of it. She almost never can repeat back what a person said, instead what she understood they meant. Not that she’s attempting to lie or misrepresent, I just think that’s the way her brain works.

The linesperson probably thought “Williams want to kill me”. Your friend said “damn butter” but in the same situation, the busboy might have used “f’ing”, so that’s the way he repeats it back.

Mike Huckabee did have a rant to open his TV show last night. A couple media outlets summarized his radio commentary, put quotes around words he never said, and then other media distributed the alledged quote without ever checking the original source.

In all the instances you mentioned, no one is “lying”. They’re remembering things differently. Have 100 people watch an event they don’t know is about to happen, and a bunch of them will remember the details differently, especially if emotions get stirred. Memory is malleable.

I agree with you MGL, just not in this case.  I mean, to the point of Mike - i have no issues with the referee paraphrasing Williams’ remarks.

My wife and I get into these predicaments all the time.  She says something I disagree with, I paraphrase it back in my own words, and the response is “I never said that” ,

"She says that...”

The “that” means “and I’m paraphrasing”.

What she needs to say is: “I don’t know exactly what she said, but the message I got out of it was...”

That’s “She says that...”

I like my way better.

This poor communication is made worse, I think, by the fact that it didn’t happen with a bus boy or a spouse. This was a judge, a person whose job is to be an arbiter of truth.

I agree with Tango in #8. Just the same, the line judge could have spoken very broadly while remaining truthful just by saying something like “She physically threatened me.”

"Damn” doesn’t exist in the lexicon of youth nowadays.* The brain registers it as an unrecognizable word functioning as f-ing, and hence automatically replaces it.

*mgl returns to say, “the bus boy was 45.”

I don’t disagree with anything said above.  I also wondered whether the line judge did actually say, “She said that she wanted to kill me,” or some such thing.  We didn’t hear or see that in the video.  That is just what Serena said. Also, Serena may have used the words, “I am going to kill you,” or some such thing, and just said that she didn’t.  If any of those scenarios is the case, that illustrates my point just as well.

When I say “lie” I don’t mean intentionally, if only because we can NEVER know whether someone is lying intentionally or not. Plus, I don’t even like that word.  I do not believe that people consciously do things “intentionally” or “unintentionally” or “lie” or don’t “lie”. People do what they do, with all kinds of thought processes and motivations that are complex and along a continuum. Like I said in the other thread, the notion that someone like the columnist who wrote about the little girl did something “with malicious intent” or not dichotomy is ridiculous.  Almost no “normal” person does stupid and offensive things with malicious intent.  They just do stupid and offensive things because....well, who knows why?

Colin, I am fully aware of the ramifications of shoving a ball down someone’s throat.  My point still stands.  When someone says, “So-and-so says X” I expect them to say more or less what that person says.  If someone says, “I am going to shove a ball down your throat,” TO ME, “I am going to kill you,” is not a particularly accurate recitation of what that person said. 

But that is just me.  I’m not like that (when I say what someone says, I say what someone says - I see no reason to change the words) and I don’t like it when people are.  When someone says something, I like to report what they said, not my interpretation of what they said or even my guess of what they said. If I am not sure, I’ll say that I am not sure.  I realize that people do the latter all the time. I am not one of them and it bugs me when someone does.

I am obviously not defending what Serena said.  I clearly said that in my original post.  Nor was I making any judgments about what my friend said in the restaurant.  I was merely using that as an example of what I was talking about and it was a perfect example, I think.

Now, did the bus-boy “intentionally” say f*** rather than damn?  I have no idea, neither does anyone else, including probably the bus boy himself.  That is why I don’t like the concept of bifurcating “intentional” and “non-intentional.” Heck, if you gave the bus boy a lie-detector test, and assuming they were accurate, I have no idea whether he would have passed or not.

The reason I don’t like when people say what happened which doesn’t conform to what actually happened, whether “intentional” or not, is that it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to resolve things.  As someone once said, most controversies and arguments can automatically be resolved (not that they all HAVE to be resolved) when all the facts are laid out on the table.

Maybe it is just the “lawyer” in me. The reason that many civil and criminal cases are hard to resolve with any certainty is because people always “lie” about what happened or they are mistaken for whatever reason about what happened.

Although I don’t disagree with anything said above, I stand 100% behind my original contention, but that is a personal thing.  Clearly some people have bugaboos about the literal “truth” and others do not.  I am one of the former....

Did you get the damn butter?

sounds like paraphrasing to me. no big whoop.

It is not a big deal in this instance.  But in many instances it is.  And that is NOT paraphrasing.  and I am not talking about paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing, which I do all the time her when I am “quoting” an announcer on TV that I heard, is when someone says, “I am going to kill you by stabbing you in the heart with a knife,” and you say, “So-and-so said, “I’ll stab you until you die!”

What I am talking about is when you say to your wife, “Honey, there are some things about you that I really don’t like,” and she says later, “You said that you hated me!” Or worse in many cases.

A typical situation I am referring to is the case with the black college professor (I forgot his name) and the cop who arrested him in Chicago.  Both are normal, intelligent (I assume) persons that had a reasonable perspective on what happened. And neither one of them probably did anything egregiously wrong. Yet one or both of them blatantly lied about exactly what happened and what was said.  That is typical of those situations.  That is what I was talking about.

Maybe the Serena situation was a bad example.

MGL, I’m right with you on this.  I don’t think you’re making too much of it all, as it pertains to a societal issue.  I guess it just hits close to home for me; I think of some incredibly frustrating disagreements with my wife (I’m 27, married two years), or many disciplinary conversations I’ve had with my public high school students and their parents. 

I’d be curious to get you guys’ feedback on my opinion about this:

I think that the lying/embellishment within a conflict or in the re-telling of a conflict often reflects insecurity or low self-confidence on behalf of the storyteller. 

Perhaps the person’s subconscious thought is that they won’t “win” the argument or be perceived as “right” by others if they simply lay the facts out as they happen.  That obviously reflects some insecurity, especially if people do it even when the facts are probably on their side.

Look at the power relationship in each of these scenarios.  A waiter is far less powerful than a few very intelligent, well-dressed guys in a casino who are unhappy with him.  He’s intimidated, and he exaggerates to his boss to strengthen his position. A lowly referee exaggerates/"lies" perhaps because Serena is far, far more powerful than her - best player in the world, physically imposing, and extremely wealthy. The referee doesn’t believe the story is “good enough” if it’s only slightly damning about Serena’s behavior.

That theory would also play well with your general opinion of that behavior, MGL.  You’re an extremely intelligent person, relative to the general population.  You’re very rational, and thus probably far less emotional than most.  “Losing” an “argument” (I’m using those two terms very broadly) is really just an opportunity to get smarter through dialogue. It doesn’t negatively affect your self-confidence or self-worth or whatever - the way it does with my wife.

(Never having talked to you, but from reading over 100 of your previous posts over the years and hundreds of other comments, I’m making some inferences here that may be untrue and with which I hope you don’t take offense:  that you’re highly intelligent and rational, and that you’re often frustrated with examples of behavior in society that are actually quite normal for average American people).

If you’re not selling jeans, what are you selling?  I agree with your assessment and thanks for the comments.

The only inference that may be a stretch is that we were well-dressed in the restaurant.

On a serious note, if I may offer a word of unsolicited advice.  With your wife or anyone for that matter, you want to be careful about harping on the “correctness” of what that person with whom you are having a disagreement has said, relative to what was actually said or done. While in the grander scheme of things, it helps when people are cognizant of the truth and of reality, and there is a time and a place where it helps to have “the truth” come to the forefront, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, having to be “right” is not a very productive strategy.  Not at all.  If your wife or anyone wants to embellish the truth, or even make up stories, let her. It is better to deal with their perception of things than to insist that everyone be on the same “truth” plane.  Trust me, I know this from experience.  It is not a good character trait, at least as far as interpersonal relationships - being a stickler for the “truth” that is. It works great for things like analyzing baseball and problem solving in general.  But for relationships - it is bad.  Really bad.  That is one reason why I am so well-liked on BBTF!

Your prescient last paragraph suggests that, unbeknownst to me or my wife, you have been invisibly present in our living room for some time now.
I am slowly graduating out of my mid-20s phase of being right all the time.  Too slowly, according to some.

As an old(er) guy, I have a bit of advice.  My marriage has been “enhanced” many times by some advice that a marriage councilor gave us before we got married.  In essence, the advice is that instead of arguing, one person needs to call a timeout.  Then we schedule a “team meeting” for a reasonably close time,yet at least 30 minutes away (a cooling down period).  At the team meeting we agree that we’re both on the same side and that we’re not in a hurry.  Then one of us (always my wife) , gives her side of what is bothering her.  I listen and then try to repeat back to her what she just said.  If I get it right, I give my side of the story and she repeats.  If I get it wrong, she tells me the right version of the wrong part, and I then repeat that.  It’s freakin’ amazing how this works.  Often we find that what happened is mostly a misunderstanding, and the rest of the time we both feel that our partner understands us.  And OK, one more:  It’s an old saw, but women want to be heard.  They DON’T want you to solve their problem (at least not at first), they just want to know that you understand.  Learn these two things guys and your partners will be very happy with you (and we all know how it feels when they’re not happy with us!)

#18, yes that is excellent advice.

Once you get rid of (you will never really get rid of it - just be aware of it as much as possible) the insidious need to be right, which we all have to some degree, there are all kinds of strategies that are available to enhance your relationships.

Really, most of the time, all you have to do is just acknowledge the other person’s point of view and/or feelings.  Arguing is usually about one or both person’s need to be right.

For example, if your child says, “Dad, you’re being way too strict,” your first instinct is either to respond, “No, I’m not,” or “It’s for your own good!” Rather than either one of them, you can acknowledge that your child thinks that you are being too strict from his/her perspective, by saying something like, “Wow, you think I’m being too strict?  I used to think the same thing about my parents when I was your age.” That doesn’t necessarily mean that you are conceding anything or that you also think that you are being too strict.

Then you can go on and do or say whatever you think is appropriate, without (hopefully) getting into a full-blown argument where very little is going to be accomplished.  For example, if you think that you can compromise in your rules, you can discuss that. If you think not, you can casually and lovingly say so and that’s that.

I learned about 17 years ago, and I firmly believe it to be true, that the two most insidious obsessions that almost all human beings have, at least in our culture, is the need to be right and the need to look good.  Those two things will destroy everything in your path if you’re not careful!

The above two posts can be summarized with these two sayings:

1. In a marriage, you have a choice: do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?

2. In a marriage, there’s your way, her way, and the middle.  You strive for the third, and settle for the second.

Btw, when you paraphrase or read between the lines, you MUST, MUST say it in such a way as to benefit whoever’s words you are mangling.

Serena said that she would “shove this tennis ball down your throat, I swear to God”.  You can’t then tell the chair umpire that “she threatened to kill me”.  I mean, I KNOW the end result of that action, if taken literally, is death. 

How about if Mac tells a line judge he’ll rip his heart out (instant death), or cut his b-lls off (potentially bleeding to death).

What if I say “you’re ripping my heart right out”, are you supposed to think “he’s accusing me of killing him, and I’m not touching him”.

So, you have to give SOME benefit of doubt, not come to the conclusion that she’s going to kill her.  Did the line judge go to the cops afterward?  I didn’t think so.

Serena was way out of line.  Her statements stand on their own.  It’s the CHAIR umpire who should have said something (if something needed to be said), not the line judge.

The line judge will get fired for showing poor judgement and thin skin.  First, she called a non-obvious foot fault while Serena was trying to break match point.  That’s ridiculous on its own.

But, Serena, yelling as she did, as loud as she did, could be heard by the chair judge.  The chair judge let Serena fly, because she knows that if she gives her another warning, the game is over.

The line judge decided she couldn’t take it any more.  Basically, she forced the chair judge to do what the chair judge was hoping to avoid to do.

Shame on Serena for acting liked a spoiled McEnroe brat.  And shame on the line judge for being part of the story, when she should have realized that the chair judge would rescue her if it was needed.

And by the way, there’s a “serve clock”.  Twenty seconds I think.  The chair could have let Serena fly off her mouth for a bit longer, let her exceed the 20 seconds, and called her second warning (meaning automatic point).

Can someone put a clock on how long Serena was on her tirade before the line judge scampered to her mommy?

PDF page 162, #19:
http://www.usta.com/AboutUs/~/media/USTA/Document%20Assets/2008/06/12/doc_13_15617.ashx

“An accepted method of match control is for an official to caution a player whose behavior is borderline. The official should never caution a player whose misconduct is clear; the official should issue a Code Violation.”

So, Serena was not borderline.  She was way over the line.  The chair judge SHOULD have issued a code violation immediately.  She did not do that.  She should have AT LEAST issued a warning (which in this case would have resulted in the same thing I guess).  She didn’t.

The chair judge basically left the line judge there at her mercy, hoping and begging that the line judge would realize that the chair judge was trying to let the match keep going.  The line judge scampered.

Did you folks watch the same match I did? This is a non-issue.  The line judge didn’t say that, as Serena said in the post-game interview. Serena misheard. Plus, the line judge only went over to the chair judge when the chair judge asked her to. I see absolutely no fault with the line judge here. I agree it was a cheap call, but if tennis officials don’t want that particular call made in tight situations, then they shouldn’t put someone on the line whose job is to call it.

What Serena did was horrific.

I learned about 17 years ago, and I firmly believe it to be true, that the two most insidious obsessions that almost all human beings have, at least in our culture, is the need to be right and the need to look good.

At least I only have one of those.

If the chair motioned for the line judge to come over, then the part where I denigrate her makes no sense.

Can someone tell me how long Serena’s tirade lasted?

Studes, no I did not watch the match nor did I hear what the line judge said.  I said the line judge said “x” apparently, because that is what Serena said she said, and it was quite plausible for the line judge to have said that.

I also said in a later post that if the line judge didn’t say that, then Serena was the one who “lied” and my point is still the same (why do people have to “lie” in a controversy).

My word “lie” in this context simply means reporting something that did not happen and it is not an innocent paraphrase, like changing a few words.

When there is a clear cut rule or guideline in any sport, there are two issues:  One, did the actions of the participate clearly violate that rule, and two, how often and to what extent is that rule enforced?  To say, well, it is a rule therefore is SHOULD be enforced is ridiculous.  If that is the case, then you can’t possibly watch a baseball game, since the strike zone “rule” is never enforced.  After every game, you would have to criticize the ump with something like, “My God, look at what that ump did all game!  He called a pitch at the letters a ball, every time!  What a lousy ump!” No, you recognize and accept that there is a different “de facto” rule than the one in the rule book. You may not like it, and you may or may not prefer the rule book strike zone, but you accept the fact that each and every umpire goes by the de facto rule rather than the one in the book for whatever reasons.

So, when someone says, “Well, it’s in the rule book, that is why I am criticizing the referee,” I think, “That is NOT a good reason.” If anything, if a referee is going to enforce a particular rule that NO ONE else enforces or is sporadically enforced, then he needs to announce that to the players before the event. If a baseball umpire all of sudden called a game according to the rule book, do you think all the players and fans would say, “Wow, good for him. Finally, someone calls the pitches according to the rule book?” No.  10% of the fans and none of the players would say that.

There is no “magic” to the rule book.  Rules are written for two reasons:  One, to determine what is fair or sensible or even moral or ethical.  In some cases, there is no “fair.” In those cases, the rules are simply for consistency in order for the players and fans to know what is going to happen. If the rule is written one way and played another way, that serves the exact purpose of the rule - which is to be consistent such that every player knows in advance what it is going to be.  There is NO reason why the umpire’s strike zone has to be according to the written rules.  What if the rule book said, “Every pitch that is between the top of the head and ground is a strike,” but that a long time ago, we decided that we would rather have a different strike zone because we wouldn’t enjoy a game with that large of a strike zone, but no one ever bothered to change the written rule?  Would it make any difference.  Would you say, “Well, we have to play by the written rule, because, uh, it is written?” There are good reasons sometimes NOT to change the written rules but to selectively enforce them.

Anyway, several things are clear here.  One, Serena was way out of line regardless of what the line judge thinks she said or said that she said.  If the rule is clear that in cases of extreme behavior by the player they should be given a penalty AND if that is what is usually done, then the penalty was appropriate.

And I used to watch tennis a lot and foot faults are not traditionally called.  They can be and can’t be.  In this case, if you watch the replay, it is not even an obvious foot fault.  It should NOT have been called.  But, line judges make mistakes like baseball umpires.  Maybe the line judge thought that it was obvious and had to be called.  Her supervisor should be talking to her about that foot fault and reminding her that, especially in an important match, unless the foot fault is egregious and obvious, we don’t call foot faults, regardless of what the rules say.  The supervisor can’t tell her, “Hey, it’s OK if you called a marginal foot fault because it is in the rule book,” unless that is the way that the USTA wants to start enforcing that rule. And if they do, they need to tell all the other tennis umpires.

And I used to watch tennis a lot and foot faults are not traditionally called.  They can be and can’t be.  In this case, if you watch the replay, it is not even an obvious foot fault.  It should NOT have been called.

MGL, I’m not sure what most of your post is in reference to if it’s responding to me, but I can respond to this particular point.  The line judges did call foot faults throughout the U.S. Open. As Serena said in her press conference, she was called for it several times in previous matches in the U.S. Open when she hadn’t been called for it much at all before this tournament.

I agree that the call was questionable in its timing, but I disagree that she should “NOT” have called it.  Calling it was in keeping with the way foot faults had been called throughout this particular tournament, IMO.

You may be asking why I watched so much tennis during the baseball season.  I’m a Mets’ fan.

"You may be asking why I watched so much tennis during the baseball season.  I’m a Mets’ fan.”

That is funny!

“I agree that the call was questionable in its timing, but I disagree that she should “NOT” have called it.  Calling it was in keeping with the way foot faults had been called throughout this particular tournament, IMO.”

I have not watched tennis in years, and I did not watch any of the U.S. Open, so I am probably 100% wrong.  When I watched tennis, big and small tournaments, 30 to 10 years ago, foot faults were almost never called and some players foot faulted every time.  Things may have changed.  Apparently they have.  I’ll leave it to those who watch tennis now to have an opinion on whether her foot fault should have been called or not. I should not have said what I said about that.  Studes, I wasn’t referring to you on that…

I heard a former USTA lines official on NPR, and he said that he calls all foot faults, that that’s what they are taught starting day 1, and he doesn’t consider the score.  He’s had Serena on his court several times, and she’s always been fine, personality-wise.  He said he would have called it, if it was a fault.

Serena’s also had several foot faults called on her in this tournament, so she knows she’s faulting.

***

I seem to remember like MGL that they wouldn’t call it.  I seem to remember either Edberg or Courier would foot fault all the time, and they’d barely call them.

The key of course is what MGL said earlier: if they are consistent with how they call it, then there’s no problem.

Here is another perfect example of what I am talking about.

Here are two parties that have perfectly legitimate positions, but one of them sees the need to blatantly lie.

I read this kind of thing every day.

According to the lawsuit, the boys were seated behind home plate when the song began playing. Once it ended, they say Cetnar approached them yelling.

“Nobody sits during the singing of ‘God Bless America’ in my stadium,” the lawsuit quotes Cetnar as saying. “Now the get the (expletive) out of here.”

Cetnar denied saying that: “Never, never did that ever happen.”

And I guess because he said “never” twice, we are to believe him.  I’m sure he’ll say that the boys were being rowdy and uncooperative, just to protect himself in the lawsuit, whether they were or they weren’t.

I’m not sure of the quality of the boys’ case.  Generally, Constitutional protections do not apply to private parties, only to arms of the “state.” The baseball club may have violated some law, but as far as I can tell, there is no Constitutional issue.

“The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress, and not to the actions of private persons.”

I’m with Colin… death is a logical result of having a tennis ball in your throat.  And as for the restaurant issue… if you hadn’t ordered your meal yet and your friend said that, I’d politely tell the waitress/busboy that you’ve decided to go somewhere else.  No matter how nice the restaurant is, if your friend says something like that to the staff, there’s a very good chance you’re going to have something unpleasant done to your food.

I am wondering if this is one of those things that everyone says but doesn’t seem like it can actually be true unless restaurant workers are somehow universally lacking in human empathy of some sort.

I have met many people I don’t like. Never once have I considered doing something that awful to them as a result.

Are restaurant workers really that likely to spit in the food of customers who aren’t being that rude (not that this was polite, but it certainly doesn’t advocate anything harsh in my book)? Or is this one of those things we all say to scare ourselves into being nice to them?

"Or is this one of those things we all say to scare ourselves into being nice to them?”

Yes. Of course.