Left Handed sticks...

[kramnoj]

And we're off veering again. Who's using his very brief big league stint as an argument FOR him?

 

Are you really unaware that this has happened? Not specifically in this thread, but by posters here?

 

 

So why does it bother you so much that some disagree? That some, in particular given the title of this thread, simply think that Mat Gamel would be a better option to play 3rd base and hit 2nd in our lineup this year?

 

The only thing that has bothered me is someone choosing the exaggerate the deficiency of McGehee's minor league stats. I feel it's best to be fair and honest, and I think trying to put someone else down to support my own argument is pathetic. It doesn't bother me to that some people prefer Gamel over Casey, but it often involves flawed logic.

[HiAndTight]

Are you really unaware that this has happened? Not specifically in this thread, but by posters here?

Then-what-is-your-point? I really don't have the time, nor the inclination to catalog every single thread that's been on here. In THIS thread the only argument made for his big league service time I've seen is an argument AGAINST Gamel.

 

But either way, why throw that back out there when you even readily admit nobody's arguing that here? How does that advance this argument? You just letting us know you don't put much weight on his small sampling of big league stats when nobody else is saying they do on this side of the argument?

 

 

The only thing that has bothered me is someone choosing the exaggerate

the deficiency of McGehee's minor league stats. I feel it's best to be

fair and honest, and I think trying to put someone else down to support

my own argument is pathetic. It doesn't bother me to that some people

prefer Gamel over Casey, but it often involves flawed logic.

 

No, I think you feel it's best to nitpick the hell outta every conversation which is "pathetic", much like you did with the "Yo being overtaxed" in the BP argument. You felt the need to seriously distinguish between "very poor" and "poor" and then continue to expand on that argument. Get over it. I don't care if you think a .741 OPS for a corner IF'er with extended minor league at bats is "poor" or "very poor" the point is that this is a large part of the reason some of us don't expect Mcgehee to continue to have the success he's had and why we DO think Gamel will have success.

 

But for god sakes, I'm done with the "poor" v "very poor" argument. You want the last word on that one, it's all yours. As for how "pathetic" it is to "put a player down," that's an awfully high pulpit you're preaching from, especially on a board in which we talk about a profession in which failure is exceedingly common. I don't think I have to go too far out onto that limb to guess you'd probably had less than complimentary statements about players from time to time.

[kramnoj]

But either way, why throw that back out there when you even readily admit nobody's arguing that here?

 

You should read post 67, where someone says "If you want to chastise posters for embellishment in attempts to diminish what players have done why not look at posters saying Gamel has done nothing at the MLB level." I can only read this as saying that what Gamel has done at the MLB level is worth considering. I provided examples of why the number of at bats that Gamel has in the majors isn't significant.

 

But for god sakes, I'm done with the "poor" v "very poor" argument.

 

You yourself said in 62, that you don't see that this discussion has any further course, but you are bringing it up again.

 

I don't care if you think a .741 OPS for a corner IF'er with extended minor league at bats is "poor" or "very poor" the point is that this is a large part of the reason some of us don't expect Mcgehee to continue to have the success he's had and why we DO think Gamel will have success.

 

If you didn't care, you wouldn't bring it up.

 

As for how "pathetic" it is to "put a player down," that's an awfully high pulpit you're preaching from, especially on a board in which we talk about a profession in which failure is exceedingly common.

 

Sure, failure is common. Pointing out a player's failures is certainly what we should do when talking about their value to the team. That doesn't mean there is any benefit from exaggerating one player's weakness in order to try to bolster the argument we have for our personal favorites.

[HiAndTight]

Sure, failure is common. Pointing out a player's failures is certainly

what we should do when talking about their value to the team. That

doesn't mean there is any benefit from exaggerating one player's

weakness in order to try to bolster the argument we have for our

personal favorites.

I think trying to put someone else down to support

my own argument is pathetic.

 

 

Perhaps if you let me know when it WAS acceptable to mention a players shortcomings in conjunction with my beliefs about their future performance, we wouldn't run into all these problems and contradictions within your own set of rules.

You should read post 67, where someone says "If you want to chastise

posters for embellishment in attempts to diminish what players have done

why not look at posters saying Gamel has done nothing at the MLB

level." I can only read this as saying that what Gamel has done at the

MLB level is worth considering. I provided examples of why the number

of at bats that Gamel has in the majors isn't significant.

 

You can "only" read it that way? You can't read it as "He hasn't had a chance or the plate apperances to prove one way or another?" I think you can only read it that way because despite your Ghandi like seeking of truth and wisdom, it must fit into your argument for it to be considered "truth."

 

If you didn't care, you wouldn't bring it up.

 

I could have sworn you brought it up. Huh. Anyway....

[kramnoj]

Perhaps if you let me know when it WAS acceptable to mention a players shortcomings in conjunction with my beliefs about their future performance, we wouldn't run into all these problems and contradictions within your own set of rules.

 

I believe I have. It's perfectly acceptable to talk about a player's shortcomings with perspective. If you can find an example where I have said anything different, please let me know.

You can't read it as "He hasn't had a chance or the plate apperances to prove one way or another?"

 

That seems like an inelegant way of making that point, so I didn't read it that way.

[HiAndTight]

I believe I have. It's perfectly acceptable to talk about a player's

shortcomings with perspective. If you can find an example where I have

said anything different, please let me know.

 

 

Huh....could have swore you were just called it "pathetic" to mention a players shortcomings when arguing for another player. Of course I have little doubt this too will devolve into an argument about semantics, but here you go;

I feel it's best to be fair and honest, and I think trying to put someone else down to support my own argument is pathetic.

That seems like an inelegant way of making that point, so I didn't read it that way.

 

I suppose this is where "context" comes into play.

 

Although I believe you just said that people have made that argument about Gamel, but not on this thread. So which is it?

[PeaveyFury]

As I more subtly hinted at in the Greinke thread, everybody needs to play nicer, please. This back-and-forth between the same few posters is starting to derail multiple threads.

[kramnoj]

Huh....could have swore you were just called it "pathetic" to mention a players shortcomings when arguing for another player. Of course I have little doubt this too will devolve into an argument about semantics, but here you go;

 

 

Below is what I wrote. Did you read that?

 

The only thing that has bothered me is someone choosing the exaggerate the deficiency of McGehee's minor league stats. I feel it's best to be fair and honest, and I think trying to put someone else down to support my own argument is pathetic.

 

Although I believe you just said that people have made that argument about Gamel, but not on this thread. So which is it?

 

People in other threads have explicitly made the argument. The post I was referencing seemed to suggest it, so I tried to head it off when talking about the overall argument when discussing the benefits of Gamel vs McGehee.

[HiAndTight]

Below is what I wrote. Did you read that?

 

Well, I just cut and pasted into my last post, so yes, I did read it. And yes, it does directly contradict what you just said. Just looking for clarification.

 

People in other threads have explicitly made the argument. The post I

was referencing seemed to suggest it, so I tried to head it off when

talking about the overall argument when discussing the benefits of Gamel

vs McGehee.

 

I think you're taking a lot of liberties here, making assumptions about what people are talking about. You said that people have made this argument,(using Gamel's big league numbers in SUPPORT of Gamel) but not on this thread. Then you continued to bring up Spencer and whomever else and use his major league numbers against him...which several people have done in this thread almost directly prior to your post.

 

So why then not the attempt to "head off" the small sample size argument when it's being used against Gamel, and only bring it up when you assume someone is possibly, maybe alluding to his major league numbers in support of Gamel?

 

 

I thought you didn't like it when people twist the facts for their own agenda?

[kramnoj]

Well, I just cut and pasted into my last post, so yes, I did read it. And yes, it does directly contradict what you just said. Just looking for clarification.

 

Exaggerating one's deficiencies and pointing out stats in perspective don't contradict each other.

[PeaveyFury]

There have been two warnings in two separate threads about this already that have been ignored. This thread is locked, and if this stuff continues in other threads, there'll be a few days away from the site for everyone involved.