----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 11:58 PM Subject: Re: Fox News, we distort, you comply.
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:51 PM > Subject: Re: Fox News, we distort, you comply. > > > > > What we're talking about here is relative skill level. > > The question is, is someone who is good enough to get > > to where they are likely to be really, really good at > > what they do? Again, look at professional baseball > > players. To play in the major leagues you have to be > > one of the ~1000 best baseball players _in the world_. > > And there are tens of millions of people who have at > > least, at some point in their lives, tried to play > > baseball. So out of all of those tens of millions of > > people, MLB players are in the top _1000_. That's > > incredibly good. > > I thought of another reason why the analogy doesn't really work How often > does an owner buy a new baseball team, force out the the top pitcher, with > an ERA of 2.15 for the last three seasons and replace him with a pitcher > with an ERA of 4.55? I personally know a corporation that replaced a > company president who lead the company to a clear first in market share > with someone else who ran his organization a distant fourth. They kept > some of his subordinates, but they didn't fare as well as the subordinates > of the internal division that was the distant fourth. Oh, and before you ask, the company made the corporation that owned it a tremendous ROI. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
