Friday, April 12, 2013

Statement Analysis Quiz: Did Pitcher Hit Batter Intentionally?

Here is a short quiz for readers.

Did this pitcher hit this batter intentionally?  Caution:  Don't vote until you read the entire entry!

Did the Pitcher Hit Him Intentionally?
  
pollcode.com free polls 

Please keep in mind that we call an "unreliable" denial this very thing because in some circumstances, it just takes a few more questions to bring out a reliable denial.

Here is an example.  The accusation:  driver smoked pot last Thursday while transporting children.  The union will not allow the private transport company to drug test him.

Q.  Did you drive last Thursday under the influence of marijuana?
A.  No

Q.  A child has reported seeing you smoke marijuana early that day.  How do you speak to this?
A.  I would never smoke marijuana and drive.

This is an unreliable denial.  The word "never" is not a substitute for "did not" and is more likely to be used in a question where one is asked if he "ever" had smoked marijuana.  

The word "would" is future/conditional tense and is not connecting the denial to a past tense event.  Notice that in the questioning, "Thursday" is a specific day. 

Q.  Okay, but he is saying you did and that another child also saw you and even described the "funny cigarette" to your supervisor.

A.  I never smoked marijuana.

This is not a reliable denial.  "Never" is an indiscriminate or non-specific answer that avoids "Thursday."  "Never" is less stressful for liars.  See Lance Armstrong.  He "never" doped, nor did Marion Jones.  Neither could ever say "I didn't", but both could say "I never."  It is an interesting difference that should always be carefully noted. 

Q.  Is there anything else you want to say?
A.  No.  I didn't smoke pot last Thursday.  I don't care what kids thought they saw.

Here is the reliable denial.  It took a few questions to get it from him but now that he has given it, the odds that he did not smoke marijuana have increased greatly. 

Q.  Why would this kid say he saw you?
A.  I don't know.  Go ask him. I didn't smoke marijuana last Thursday.

Q.  You said, "I didn't smoke marijuana last Thursday." Why should we believe you?
A.  Because I told the truth.  Can I go now?

He has now moved into statistically innocence.  "I told the truth" is clear:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense "told"
3.  the inclusion of "truth" regarding his denial. 

He didn't smoke marijuana but buys cheap tobacco and  rolls his own cigarettes.   For some, it just takes a little time to get the denial, but it must come from the subject and now our own words. 

Here is the article and the quote for you to analyze on your own.  The Pitcher and this batter have an ugly history, and the batter has a reputation for being hit by pitches.  


NY Post:

Greinke, who signed a six-year $147 million contract with the Dodgers this offseason, hit Padres outfielder Carlos Quentin with a pitch in the sixth inning, causing the slugger to charge the mound where Greinke lowered his shoulder as the fight erupted.

The two players have a history as Greinke had plunked Quentin twice prior when the two were in the American League (Greinke with Kansas City and Quentin with Chicago).

Still, Greinke remained adamant that he did not mean to hit Quentin on purpose.

"I never hit him on purpose," said Greinke, who had his left arm in a sling and appeared shaken after the game. "I never thought about hitting him on purpose. He always seems to think that I'm hitting him on purpose, but that's not the case. That's all I can really say about it."

The fight did not end there however, as Dodgers outfielder Matt Kemp nearly came to blows with Quentin after the game as the two were leaving Petco Park and had to be separated by police and security.

"I think Carlos Quentin went to Stanford, something like that?" Kemp said. "I heard there's smart people at Stanford. That wasn't too smart. Greinke didn't do anything wrong. That stuff happens in the minor leagues. It doesn't happen in the big leagues."

Quentin has developed a reputation as a hitter who is frequently hit by pitches. The outfielder has led the majors in hit-by-pitches in each of the past two seasons and has the seventh-highest total among active players with 116.

It is unclear how much time Greinke will be forced to miss after the incident.

15 comments:

Dee said...

"I never hit him on purpose," said Greinke, who had his left arm in a sling and appeared shaken after the game. "I never thought about hitting him on purpose. He always seems to think that I'm hitting him on purpose, but that's not the case. That's all I can really say about it."
***********************************
This was tricky. You had me looking for the reliable denial after the unreliable ones. I didn't see one. I never thought, he always seems to think, that's not really the case...hedging. He may be sensitive about their past encounters but I didn't hear him say "I didn't hit Quentin on purpose." More questioning needed.

Coughing (still, with no clue about baseball) said...

I know nothing about baseball...do you get to walk if you're hit? This is not yet reliable or unreliable, because 'never' is suited to referring to an old battle with a guy who has claimed you've hit him on purpose before. So he may be referring to the sum total rather than just that evening. I would want someone to narrow down that question, since they have a history, to just that one night.
Also, minor leagues include American league? If so it seems that Kemp is saying, yeah, prior to this we hit people on purpose.
Anyway, the dude gets in the way of balls. Why? Whats in it for him?

Coughing said...

I want to add that Kemp's information is like a red herring. It DOES make me suspect the pitcher more when it simply shows that he has kind of a Lance Armstrong ethic about minor league baseball, which should be irrelevant in a pure SA of the pitcher's account.

Jen said...

I love these quizzes!

I voted yes, with sensitivity...and i was shocked to see many others did as well. I realize he didn't issue the 3 part reliable denial, but he's speaking to a history of events, not just the current incident.

The player Quentin has been hit 116 times! Sounds to me like he's crowding the plate, and turning into the pitch...getting hit on purpose to get on base. How many hits (ball to bat) does he have, compared to walks from stepping in front of the ball, lol?

I think the sensitivity behind the pitchers language is due to the repeated incidents...saying 'never' in reference to more than one event (meaning he didn't purposely hit him this time or the other times). He said he 'never thought about hitting him on purpose', which is likely untrue...at least at this point. If you had repeatedly been accused of hitting someone on purpose, and they had even attacked you because of it, wouldn't you probably THINK to yourself... 'next time he pulls that dirty trick, I'll leave him with no doubt about whether I meant to hit him or not!'

The pitcher probably thinks the guy he hit is a flopper, but doesn't want to incite any more anger by saying the guy is full of crap. Being hit that many times by a pitch makes Quentin look more suspicious than the pitcher, but if he points that out, it will look like he's making excuses. So the pitcher wisely ends the conversation, saying..'that's all he can really say' about it.

Sus said...

I voted "unreliable denial, but I still cannot tell."

We need further questioning, and the trouble with incidents like this is that we have to rely on news sources. The pitcher might have issued a reliable denial with further questioning.

It is hard to say what the outfielder thinks is "wrong" from his quote. We can't rely on his quote for much help.

The batter has been hit a lot, but I didn't take that into consideration. Pitchers could have it out for him or he could turn into the pitch a lot.

Sus said...

Peter,
Is this a real news article? I have read this sentence over and over -

"Still Greinke remained adamant that he did not mean to hit Quentin on purpose."

That's just not right! Haha.

Seagull said...

I'm saying unreliable denial plus sensitivity for the following observations in my humble opinion.

He starts by saying "never", I never hit him on purpose. He doesn't say "I didn't hit him on purpose". Never doesn't mean no and the two guys have history. He then repeats the word never. Repeated words show sensitivity. He tells us what he doesn't do (in the negative) "I never THOUGHT about hitting him on purpose" He could have been thinking about hitting him. There are extra words. There is also the need to explain which indicates sensitivity, "he always seems to think that, I'm hitting him on purpose" "I'm hitting him on purpose could be an embedded answer, where he is telling us what he is doing. He finishes by saying, "that's all I can say really" All I can say doesn't mean he doesn't know, he's not limited by knowledge but by something else. All I can say could be all he's allowed to say without getting himself in trouble. This statement is weakened by the qualifying word "really" he knows more but doesn't want to tell us. There is no reliable denial plus several sensitivity indicators.

Fingers crossed.

Seagull said...

I should add that being from the UK, my caveat is that I'm not familiar with Baseball terminiology and the context :) That's my excuse but I enjoy having a go.

Cordelia said...

"I have never used marihuana"

How is that unreliable? Are we not supposed to not interpret? How do you get "maybe" from "never" without interpreting?

Mel said...

I saw two unreliable denial statements and an imbedded confession.

Lis said...

No reliable denial here, he framed the phrase "I'm hitting him on purpose" and then he finished with "that's all I can really say about it."

I guess I would have to say he hit him on purpose.

I haven't followed baseball lately, why is Quentin getting hit so often? Is he leaning into the pitches hoping to be hit? Does this tempt Greinke to do it?

Lis said...

Hi Cordelia, I'll try to answer your question though I'm just a learner here, also. For some reason it does not stress a person to say they "never" did something even if they really did. So the phrase "I never smoked marijuana" is inconclusive- many persons who have smoked it would be able to say they "never smoked" without stress. We are not interpreting "never" to mean "maybe" we are simply passing over the statement because statistically we cannot draw a conclusion from it. We have to wait for a specific denial that includes the specific incident being referred to, the personal pronoun "I" and "did not."

john said...

Hi Cordelia,This article should explain for.



http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-word-never-in-analysis.html

SAlurker said...

"I never hit him on purpose," said Greinke, who had his left arm in a sling and appeared shaken after the game. "I never thought about hitting him on purpose. He always seems to think that I'm hitting him on purpose, but that's not the case. That's all I can really say about it."

"I ~never~ hit him ~on purpose~," said Greinke

Never instead of did not. "On purpose."

+

"I ~never~ thought about hitting him ~on purpose~"

Never instead of did not again. "On purpose" said again.

+

"He always seems to think that I'm hitting him ~on purpose~, but that's not the case."

"On purpose" said once more.

Also, he sounds like a "domestic abuser" in this comment.

+

No reliable denial issued. "On purpose" is said three different times. "On purpose" is sensitive to him.

=======
"I think Carlos Quentin went to Stanford, something like that?" Kemp said. "I heard there's smart people at Stanford. That wasn't too smart. Greinke didn't do anything wrong. That stuff happens in the minor leagues. It doesn't happen in the big leagues."

Most of Kemp's statement is diversion. What's Kemp's version "doing anything wrong"? Why is Kemp speaking for Greinke???

+

From the words here, there is no reliable denial. "On purpose" is sensitive to the pitcher. Which makes me wonder if he hit the batter in this case on purpose or in the past on purpose.

C5H11ONO said...

Regarding the bus driver:

Because he initially gave an unreliable denial stating “I would never smoke marijuana and drive” and “I never smoked marijuana”. Then he finally stated “I didn’t smoke pot last Thursday” on two occasions, I understand that it is a reliable denial as to smoking marijuana on Thursday, but is it wrong of me to assume that he does smoke pot and the reliable denial came because he didn’t actually smoke “pot” on Thursday. He stated he would never (future tense) smoke marijuana and drive (he added the unnecessary, and drive). Does this mean he would smoke marijuana, but not drive? He used marijuana when making unreliable denials, but then switched to the catchier and smaller word pot when making his reliable denial. Is it safe to assume that this bus drive does indeed smoke marijuana?