If you want to argue that the red hot Mariners aren't a good representation of the normal Mariners we'll see for large swaths of this season because no team is ever as good as it looks when red hot...that's fair (and fine)...you run aground with me (and with Doc evidently) when you say "there's no conclusion that can be drawn based on three games. It's not that we have no info of value...the valid question after three games is...are these improvements we're witnessing going to be things that the players can keep doing? Or will they fall back to bad habits when things start going wrong?
We can watch that as both statisticians and scouts. And we can issue warnings she things change. We can't assume that Paxton can throw the cutter like that all the time. We can't assume that Miller won't go through periods where he's not seeing the ball as well, etc. That doesn't mean what the club has done thus far is just luck.

But when it comes to the M's blogosphere there's more to it. Dave Cameron (and to a lesser extent, Derek Zumsteg) has perpetuated the notion that the highest virtue is being objective, and the way to be achieve objectivity is to be hyper cynical. No one is allowed to get excited about a player or the team unless he says it's okay. He's the biggest wet blanket I've ever seen. He has also insisted that doing things the "right way" is the only way to operate, and if the org doesn't do things his way then they are imbeciles who can't even wipe the drool from their mouthes. This arrogance and negativity has infected the M's sabermetric fanbase and made things really unpleasant and often downright ugly.
The perfect illustration of this was the reaction to the John Jaso trade. The denizens of LL and USSM were absolutely frothing with vicious, uncontrolled anger even though Jaso was mediocre and we had a better catcher coming up through the system. They were completely irrational with rage, and yet they will insist that they are paragons of rationality who simply evaluate things using their cold, Vulcan logic.
USSM has done a huge service in educating the fanbase about sabermetrics, but they have also completely poisoned the well.

Baseball people freak out all the time about "sample size" and "not drawing conclusions with limited data" and when you ask them how much data would make something rock-solid you wind up with a datapoint size that, in some cases, is larger than the peak of a player's career - or maybe even his whole career.
There are things that "stabilize" before other things.  Swinging K rate is a pretty quick stabilizer, IIRC. So you are allowed to draw "reasonable" conclusions from things that stabilize at a decent rate.  But if you'd like not to wait half a season in order to draw conclusions from what you're watching, maybe the statements need to be phrased differently.
"James Paxton is gonna be a Cy Young candidate after seeing that performance." That sort of statement makes the scientifically-minded have aneurysms.
"James Paxton will be a force all year if he can keep throwing 94-98 and use his cutter like that."  Better.  And truer.
"James Paxton threw a 94-98 MPH 4-seam fastball, a 90-92 mph cutter, and a curveball that was his third-best pitch on the night." Best for some people - just the facts ma'am.
But what use are facts without conclusions? Suppositions? Possibilities explored and looked for?
We know Paxton threw a great game.  We know the offense had a great series. We don't know if it's sustainable.  We don't know how many times this year Paxton will throw like that.  Maybe it's the only time, maybe he does it in 20 starts.
We know Ackley and Smoak and the like have not yet lived up to their expectations coming out of college.  We don't know what their ceiling is yet, or even their average expectation. We know what people who hit like them in the past have done with similar numbers to start their careers (spoiler alert: for the most part it isn't much to write home about) but those people are not these people. Jamie Moyer had a unique career.  Randy Johnson became the best LH pitcher of all time after being a disappointment through age 28.
# of wins after age 32:
Niekro: 237
Cy Young: 225
Spahn: 218
Moyer: 210
Big Unit: 199
Both those guys, Jamie and Randy, had "surprising" careers and few people would have ever bet that they would pitch that long and be that good. But in that moment when their careers shifted, in Moyer's age 33 season or Randy's age 29 season, could you see it?  Could you see the change?  Or did you need the next 200+ wins to explain it to you?
It's just three games.  Nothing has happened yet - except we went 3-0, all the kids flourished, and we looked like a competitor.
Now comes the next series, and then the next one. We'll lose 60 games this year - most everyone does. But if we keep winning more than we lose, at what point will what we are watching be considered to be valid?
I look forward to finding out, especially if the team keeps winning more than they lose and playing this way.
~G

I've reading a great book on the new atheist: Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn. So much of what you discuss here is covered in this excellent little book. If for no other reason, reading the book is a great way to dust off your skills in logic. The main point of the book is this: if you are going to be an atheist, you have to give reasons for why you say there is no God. It's not enough to sit back and put the burden of proof is on the Theist. Logic is actually on the Theist's side. And in this case, you also can't sit back and claim to be agnostic.
But the larger point (bet you didn't know that baseball would be the "larger point", did ya?) is that the cynic thinks that it's enough to simply say it's the Mariners, so of course we need more proof that this is for ito be real. But all the proof we have right now, all the proof anyone has right now, is three games. So actually, the onus is on the cynic to give a reasonable explanation as to why the Mariners will be a losing team right now. Yes, it's a small sample size. But it's also a brand new season, and it's the only sample we have. And that sample says the Mariners are a winning team.
So, yes, unlike the God-No God argument, it is ok and smart to be agnostic at this point. It's not a cop out to wait and see. It is a long season. But frankly, those who say the Mariners are headed for another losing season have the burden of proof. Even before these three games, IIRC, the projections at Fangraphs had Seattle at around 81-82 wins. Those of us who say its been turned around have the facts and evidence on our side.

...the same thing is happening with climate science.
A cluster of scientists realized in the 1980s that not only was CO2 a greenhouse gas and we were producing a lot more of it in the atmosphere, but that the globe should theoretically warm as a direct result of the increased CO2 levels...they developed some rudimentary models and honed a "strong form hypothesis."
Naturally, some people were skeptical of the hypothesis and had rational reasons for being skeptical - either of the input data showing that the planet was warming or of the secondary effects that cause CO2 to theoretically warm the planet to dangerous levels, rather than only slightly, or of the rate of the projected warming.
As the debate heated up (heh), skeptics started scoring some points...and climate scientists in the anthropogenic/dangerous warming camp moved the goalposts. They started saying "we have a scientific THEORY...once something is a theory, you have to DISPROVE it...not raise questions about it and call that a good rebuttal." Did you see the change? It went from being a hypothesis to a THEORY. Very different meaning in science. And in this case...an entirely WRONG usage of that word. A theory implies that significant laboratory/data analysis/experimental corroboration exists to back up the hypothesis. But...we don't have a long enough/trustworthy enough temperature record, there are still many untested portions of the strong hypothesis, etc...and most of the "proof" the climate scientists are citing is in the form of models that are tuned based on the hypothesis!
And then skeptics brought these objections up.
And the goalposts got moved again. Now it wasn't just a THEORY...it was scientific consensus...it was FACT (something that should not even exist in science beyond basic input data). And now that it was FACT...the burden of proof was not only on the skeptical side...but they needed remarkable evidence to disprove the FACTS.
And now they're moving the goalposts again as we start getting remarkable data to shoot down key aspects of the hypothesis. For example...satellite records that show no increase in water vapor. Or direct measurements of the impact of galactic cosmic rays on cloud cover that suggest a huge chunk of the recent warming was caused by the sun.
Now...not only should we think of the hypothesis as FACT/CONSENSUS...but the people who doubt this FACT are CRIMINALS! People who should be held responsible for the deaths of millions of people that haven't even died yet (seriously...read the headlines lately in the climate blogs and in response to the latest report from the IPCC).
People have a bad habit of playing this game to win an argument.

USSM has in fact gotten a lot easier to read lately...guys like Cameron have left and are replaced with milder personalities like marc w and Sullivan on occasion. And over at LL, they're just as giddy about the Mariners as we are here...so...maybe we're allowed to be fans again?

As much as I do the vitriol and derision leveled at those who want a real discussion. To remove deity from the discussion because it can't be (by definition, mind you) measured and proven scientifically is very akin to modern day sabermetricians who act as if winning attitudes and clubhouse chemistry aren't real because they cannot be measured. But to walk around pretending something doesn't exist because you can't measure it is not the same as admitting, for example, that one can't speak authoritatively, as a scientist, on the subject.
So the blogs don't have to care about the things a GM is paid to do: create a good clubhouse atmosphere and a winning culture. I like the comment by James, that the Red Sox front office thinks about clubhouse chemistry all the time. Many sabermatricians would scoff at such a thing. But look who is the most successful team over the last decade. Sabermatricans are baseball's scientists for sure, and thank God for them. But GMs are the metaphysicians, the philosophers of the game. So they think long and hard about the vital stuff the scientist is not qualified to speak authoritatively on. But that does NOT MEAN they dabble in superstitions. The metaphysician, the philosopher, takes what science can instruct us on, and properly utilizes it. Big difference. And frankly, this is the only Mariner blog that has consistently understood and explained this.

Speak to the Atheist argument, there are all sorts or reasons given as to why an Atheist lacks belief in God. Just do a quick google of atheism claims and there you have it. No credible Atheist will claim that the reasons he is an Atheist PROVE that Atheism is correct, they just merely give a stability to his/her position.
Take evolution for example. Before evolution became the dominant theory for how we get diversity of species, there wasn't one outside of "God created everything in its' present form". Before geologists proved that the Earth was billions of years old, the prevailing theories were that God created everything rather recently. Before we understood germs and disease, people thought that God(s) used disease or famine as punishment or reward. The list goes on and on. An Atheist will add up all of these individual arguments, look at the arguments on the other side, and draw the conclusion that the evidence is stronger in support of Atheism. This isn't a cop out. This is a conclusion based on evidence. Can an Atheist PROVE his worldview? Absolutely not. Can a Theist? Absolutely not.
......................
I also don't understand this hesitance to assume the burden of proof. If I were to say, I think that there existed an alien race that created a city called Atlantis which is now buried at the bottom of the sea, would the burden of proof lie on you to disprove it? Of course not.
If I were to say, in the 21st century, I think a specific God created the universe and everything in it to fulfill his desire to have people either go to heaven or hell based on how they live their 10 seconds of cosmic time, why on Earth wouldn't the burden of proof be on me to show real hard proof? If you wish to make a claim like that, either show proof of it or don't. If you don't think the burden of proof is on you, well, I just don't know where else this "debate" could go. That's not a debate.
It seems to me that the Theistic position wants to shirk responsibility because it has been the dominant and unchallenged one for so many centuries, and it feels like there are remnants of that attitude in trying to assign all the work to the Atheist position. With sooooooo much scientific advancement over the last few centuries though, you now have to show your work when you make claims. A scientist has to assume the burden of proof when he claims that a rock is 2.2 million years old. Darwin assumed the burden of proof when he claimed that humans evolved from other life forms.
If I'm not understanding your position correctly, by all means let me know where I've veered off.

as arrogant and smug. "It's very comforting to the closed-minded". Yuck. Apparently you have access to truths and open mindedness that Carl Sagan never did. Congrats.
I try really hard to curtail animosity, but when you say things like that, it just makes people like me throw up. You aren't writing specifically to the people that think like you. You are writing on the internet. If you don't like provocation and you only try to promote "clean, honest respectful dialogue" as I've heard you and others parrot, then why write something like that?
Either stick to baseball (where your writing is entertaining and usually good for debate) or expect some people to find things you say offensive and tell you exactly why.
........................
If you are looking for scintillating philosophical debate, just go to youtube. Hitchens vs. anybody is really fun. Dawkins vs.Lennox is good. Harris vs Craig is good. If you are having trouble finding interesting debates, you aren't looking very hard.

I rarely comment on other sites, but in the Greg John's MLB.com recap, I saw a minor error and decided to point it out. Not the smartest thing I've done - if you go into the pigpen...
From Greg Johns' recap of the Paxton start:
"Zunino said Paxton picked up right where he left off last year but has added an improved cutter that comes in on left-handers ... "
I commented:
Sorry, Mr. Johns, but a "cut" fastball moves opposite from a normal fastball --- Paxton's fastball runs into a LH hitter and away from a RH hitter. His new cut fastball runs into the hands of a RH hitter and away from a LH hitter. If you watch the sequences against Pujols, one can clearly see the ball moving in towards his hands and very slightly down. The cut fastball is a tool against RH, but against LHs would tend to move to the fat part of the bat. Now if he starts throwing it like Mariano ...
I got these responses:
muldhoon1
@BartBat - Actually Bart, you have it wrong. Totally wrong.
commenter
@BartBat - You obviously haven't played baseball (especially not as a pitcher) a day in your life. Please don't ever try to correct someones baseball knowledge again. Cut fastballs from lefties go in on righties, and away from left handers.
I responded to muldoon1:
@muldhoon1 - try reading the comment again. I could be clearer that "if started inside (to throw for a strike), against LHs (it would) tend to move to the fat part of the bat" but the comment is correct in the description of the physics of a LHPs cut fastball as opposed to a normal fastball AND on the specific visual on the pitch action to Pujols.
And to "commenter":
@commenter - which is EXACTLY what I said. And I have played and coached. Maybe you need to try reading. You obviously lack some skill there.
The "commenter" was such an egregious idiot he ticked me off. I'm again SO glad that SSI has a knowledgeable, LITERATE, readership. And a civil group who reads and considers carefully what they want to say and how to say it. Lesson learned.
By the way, on the TNT site when they listed the minor league rosters, Dutton (or his editorial assistant) had Aaron Wilson rather than Austin Wilson. I pointed it out in a comment and it was corrected a few hours later. After it was corrected, there was a comment from someone who thought I meant Austin didn't belong at Clinton, but all in all, the TNT is a good place to discuss baseball news with a good following. What a contrast.

1. Ackley doesn't seem to be falling off towards first base as much as he was last year. In game 1 he hit a fastball on the outside black to left field while keeping all his weight going towards the pitcher. That was encouraging. Through 3 games his Sw% at strikes is up, so that's also encouraging. I am slightly more optimistic on him than I was a month ago, but I want to see if he can maintain these changes for a few months. He did after all have 2 or 3 good months when he first came up, so I hope these changes hold.
2. I am way less optimistic on Smoak than you are, simply because I think he's just hot right now and here's why.
You said that he has made an adjustment and is now hitting pitches he couldn't hit before, namely the pitch at the top of the zone. I went through all of his homeruns from last year looking for any that were identical to the one he hit against Jepsen on opening night, the one that was at the top of the strike zone running back over the middle of the plate. I found 2.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_06_25_pitmlb_seamlb_1&...
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_08_11_milmlb_seamlb_1&...
The first on June 25th, the second on August 11th. Both came on 94 mph fastballs against a RHP and were both hit to more or less the same spot.
To my eye, he isn't hitting the ball harder, but hopefully there is batted ball velocity somewhere that someone could help me out with. He has always had the ability to hit line drives and homeruns. He's always had a pretty good eye. He's just never had that elite first baseman power, and I haven't seen anything yet that makes me believe he has. I distinctly remember two balls hit already that were classic "warning track" Smoak in the first three games. Both looked like they were squared up pretty well, and both died on the track. Call me cynical, but I think he's just hot right now. I would love to be wrong on him however.
3. Miller might be the best player on the team besides Felix and Cano. He's struggled with fastball away the first few games, don't remember if that was a problem last year or not. He hits the ball hard a lot, has great speed, plays an adequate SS. I think this is the beginning of his 4 WAR floor career if he stays healthy. You add up 110 wRC+, average SS defense and 150 games and you've got yourself 4 WAR. I don't see a reason why he can't do that starting 3 days ago.
4. Paxton might have jumped a step starting halfway though last year. A few people have pointed out on here that last year there was a point that Paxton talked about where he made a mechanical fix to his follow through or landing foot or something, and ever since he average like 7 IP per start in the minors. If that's the case, the dude is gonna be tough. I don't expect his walks to stay at like 2.5 or his K's at 11, but based on his stuff it's easy to see 9k 3-4 BB Paxton starting yesterday. He did get lucky on quite a few line drives yesterday, with normal luck he by all rights should've given up a few runs last night, but he's gonna be the number 3 or 4 starter when Iwakuma is healthy, and a guy with a 3.34 ERA from that spot going 6 innings or more is a great boost. I think he'll be around a 2.5-3.5 WAR pitcher over 190 innings this year if I had to predict.
5. Erasmo's change-up was so good. Why on Earth was he throwing my sliders last year? He needs to get back a few ticks on his fastball, because 89 from him is going to put tons of pressure on his command. He got shelled on two beautiful first pitch fastballs low and away on back to back hitters. If's hes sitting 89-90 he's gonna have some rough starts. If he can get back to 92-94, that should help. That and avoiding sliders left over the plate, which has always been his issue when he gets ahead in the count. Probably just needs to build up his arm strength over his first few starts. My guess is if he stays healthy I think he's a 2-2.5 WAR guy over like 180 innings.
For me, I'm in the middle of the two camps. Some are delirious with all of this offense and think the arrow is straight up. Others are pessimistic and want to wait a few months. I think there are clear encouraging signs to get excited about, and from a fan's perspective it's been really fun watching the first 3 games. I also don't see us maintaining anywhere near this level of offense. From a strictly analytical standpoint, I think we all should wait a month or two before we start disseminating who's actually improved and who hasn't.

I think the strong voices in the M's blogosphere with the 'more objective than thou' attitude are no longer M's fans for the most part. They have been become national commentators (like Dave Cameron) or apparently lost their passion for baseball (Derek Zumsteg).
The consequence is that the community is generally well educated on sabrmetric issues, but stat snobs and sycophants no longer rule the roost.

There appears to be a bug that won't allow me to respond directly below your response to me, but when you write:
"If I were to say, in the 21st century, I think a specific God created the universe and everything in it."... I would stop right there. The theistic position is simply that - that a omnipotent being created the universe. Everything else you add to that sentence is additional baggage. The alternative views: that the universe created itself, always existed, or was created out of nothing, is the more difficult and even extraordinary claim in my mind.

but technically the Theist position is that a personal God exists which then attaches a purpose for humanity. A Muslim, a Jew, a Christian are all Theists. A Deist is more general, they don't necessarily believe that God interferes in peoples' lives or that there is a supernatural quality about it. So I don't think that dismissing the "baggage" that I tacked on is a fair distinction. If you are a Theist, you believe a specific God created the universe and everything in it for the sake of, maybe among other things, determining whether people go to heaven or hell ultimately. I don't think that's a controversial statement at all. A Deist would challenge it, but a Theist doesn't. So maybe there's just some confusion of terms.
Anyway, I'll just take your position as you stated it. I think a specific God created the universe and everything in it.
-How did he do it? ...............Well that's not for me to prove, that's for you to disprove.
-When did he do it?................. Again, that's on you.
-Well does he still exist? ................. Pssh, that's on you buddy, you go figure it out. I've made a claim that seems pretty obvious to me, I mean look around, all this stuff didn't just appear out of thin air right? So you'd better get to work trying to to disprove my argument.
......................
What if I said the universe created itself. Would the burden of proof be on me to explain how that happened? You betcha. The same would apply if I said it always existed or it was created out of nothing. When ANYONE makes a claim as to the origin of the universe, they've assumed the burden of proving their statement, unless of course they don't care whether or not their argument is logical or reasonable and just want to believe in whatever they choose, in which case thankfully we are free to do just that.
......................
Cliff notes: The burden of proof doesn't fall to the argument that seems more extraordinary to someone than another argument. It falls to the person making it.

Does not an atheist make an argument? There is no God.
As for me, If I can postulate that an intelligent being created the universe, and I think logic leads us to that direction, then I will begin to do the work of ordering my life according to that belief. I will likely prepare myself to be held accountable for my actions toward my creator. If I don't think an intelligent being created the universe, I suppose that will lead me to a number of other directions. Strange, and illogical, to me it is that a created being like myself would possess a personality whilst my creator would not. The alternative to that would be my personality is an illusion. I don't act as if it is an illusion, so I don't know why I would believe it. Most atheists I know take their personality quite seriously as well. Why would I own something my creator is incapable of having? That seems illogical. So, I am not a believer in an impersonal God.

I'm not stating the likelihood of Theism and a FSM to be roughly equal, and I didn't do that anywhere in my posts.
You are equating things that have varying degrees of absurdness to each other. Everyone agrees the FSM isn't real, 99.5% of people don't believe in fairies, maybe 93% of people don't believe in Atlantis, we could say that maybe 88% of people don't believe vampires exist, etc. You could slide it all the way down to the loch ness monster, maybe coming in around 50% (I have no idea). The point is, what's absurd to you or me isn't universal. Which is why a system like "If you make a claim, you show the proof" should be automatic.
600 years ago, the idea that there was no God(s) was patently absurd. The more science has uncovered about the world, the more people are abandoning Theistic views. If we were having this discussion 600 years ago, you wouldn't have to show proof of your claim. It was "obvious". In 2014, when you make a claim and wish to have it scientifically accepted, you have to explain why. Times have ch ch changed.
............
Using the argument that many top scientists are also Theists doesn't cut it, and you should know that. Many top scientists (in terms of pure volume) also think evolution is a lie. Comparatively it's like 98/2, but there are tens of thousands of people with scientist attached to their name that don't believe we share a common ancestor with other primates. So what. Albert Einstein said some things regarding the apparent fine tuning of the universe 70 or 80 years ago. So what. Isaac Newton, whom many believe to be the smartest man to ever live, believed in Alchemy his entire life. So what. The point is that just because someone of high esteem said things, or that 95% of the worlds population believes in God (which I would challenge) doesn't mean that their opinions are true, or even likely. It is the quality of their evidence that makes or breaks a theory.
If I pulled a random religiously affiliated person off the street and asked for the best arguments for Theism, do you think you'd be impressed with their answer. Think about that for a minute. I read recently that 25% of Americans polled thought the Earth was the center of the universe or something equally embarrassing. Nearly 50% (a majority of the 3 options given!!!) of people in this country believe God created the world and humans within the last 10,000 years. Using populist arguments doesn't cut it.
93% of the National Academy of Sciences members, one of the top scientific organizations in the country are Atheist. What does that prove?
..............
And for the record, I do know the best arguments in support of God. I've seen a lot of William Lane Craig, Dinesh D' Zousa, etc. I know the arguments very well. I'm not sure this debate is headed for a rehash of those arguments, but I'm not opposed. Rather I think this debate, from my perspective, is to clear up this misconception of the "burden of proof" argument. Which I feel I've done.

For leading your life as you see fit, and believing the universe is ordered a certain way. I've got no ill wishes against that.
As far as the argument that you get your conscience or morality from a creator, well that argument has been thoroughly exhausted. You can choose to believe that because you have traits or symptoms of being they MUST have been given to you by something or someone else. If that's really the argument though for God's existence, I can tell for a fact you haven't read the argument from the other side regarding where those things come from, and thus I don't really want to debate it. I've seen this movie before.
As to the original point I was trying to make which I feel you have dodged. Atheist's DO give reasons why they lack belief in God. I gave a few examples, and there are dozens more out there. A competent Atheist can and SHOULD back up his argument. But ultimately an Atheist is merely rejecting Theistic claims. That's what the definition of Atheism is. You say "I believe Jehovah is God", you give reasons for believing it, I think your reasons are weak and don't hold up to scrutiny for reasons X Y and Z, bam, that makes me Atheist regarding Jehovah. Atheism is a reaction to Theistic claims.
..................
I can never prove your version of Theism is false. Never. Never ever in a billion years. You know why? Because your version of Theism depicts a God that lives outside our physical universe. He is undetectable. He is unfalsifiable. There is not one single thing I could point to that proves God doesn't exist. This is why Atheists get annoyed when a Theist says "you claim there is no God, the burden of proof is on you". By your definition of God, it is literally impossible to disprove. We can only point to the holes in your arguments or the lack of evidence supporting your claims. I say again, Atheism is a REACTION to Theism. I mean it has the word Theism in it for crying out loud lol.

Then I would respectfully suggest the burden of proof is indeed on you to explain to me how it is reasonable to make such a case.

If I stated "the universe came into existence from a state of nothingness before it", absolutely, I'd better have some good reasons to believe that, but I didn't state that as my position. Again, this goes back to, if you make a claim about the origin of the universe, you'd better be able to back that up. Saying "God created the universe" is directly on par with saying "The universe sprung into existence out of nothing", scientifically speaking. Both require you to prove your statements with evidence to be considered scientifically valid. If your argument consists of "common sense", or "you can't get something from nothing", then you're aren't providing evidence. You're just merely stating opinions. Are we in agreeance on that point?
...........................
There is some fascinating stuff being discovered, some of which has been written about by Lawrence Krauss in A Universe from Nothing. If you are ACTUALLY interested in the idea that the universe could have sprang into existence from a state of non existence, then read that. If you really wish to understand the other side of the debate, that's a great place to start.

I'd just like to add that I consider "common sense" to be a tad higher than opinion. I don't know how a scientist can conduct research if he doesn't start with some commonly held assumptions, things like "out of nothing, nothing comes." But I'll check out this strange new theory. It'll probably be above my head, however. :-)