SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
8/15-8/16 Red Sox vs. Cardinals Series Thread
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,951
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 17, 2017 23:18:55 GMT -5
The math (stats) either supports or disproves people's beliefs. Yet when it disproves a belief, some can't just accept that and have to keep arguing. If a player doesn't "seem" to match up with his stats, it's because the person watching is more influenced by either the bad or good moments that they remember most, all while trying to fit everything within the narrative that they want to believe. This has been happening in far more than sports lately. The gameday threads are pretty damn brutal about that because you have people coming to conclusions about a player because of one plate appearance, ignoring their recent play, their season and their career. And then later in the game, they pretend they were just going for the reverse jinxes. And yet you and others will say Hanley is injured, with no real confirmation of that, or to what degree is may be affecting his numbers. Saber minded people are as much, if not more, inclined to confirmation bias as other non saber people. In the end, I enjoy reading people's opinions and research. There are folks on this board who put a lot of time into the research at no real monetary benefit to them. But what you just wrote here has a real elitist bent. There are folks who don't want to or aren't inclined to put saber orthodoxy in their posts. I enjoy reading people's opinions also. I think i know your style of posting and i have no problems with you or your posts, and I say this without a hint of malice towards you. Hanley is most likely a regressed hitter from his prime, who is prone to streakiness. That frustrates me when I am watching the games. I really don't need numbers to confirm that for me. If he went on a tear to end the season, that wouldn't make this my take on Hanley wrong. What? That Hanley's shoulders were bothering him, and that it was hampering his hitting, was very widely reported. Yes, sabr minded people are prone to confirmation bias, but, no, not more so than others. If you're looking at numbers, your primary goal is try to find out what's true. If the numbers are ambiguous, sure, confirmation bias rears its head. I'm as guilty of that as anyone. But if the numbers are unambiguous, confirmation bias goes out the window. Wow, I thought player X was much better in situation X, but in fact he's neutral, or much worse. Done. Whereas that never happens if you don't look at the numbers. IOW, very often there's no data at all to confirm your bias. The only thing that bugs the sabr-minded folks is when the non-sabr-minded repeat criticism or recommendations after they've been exposed as biased and unsupported by reality. Yes, we know that Hanley frustrates you and that based on today's rough game you think he shouldn't be in the lineup right now. That's not uninteresting to read the first time. But when we point out that he's actually on a bit of a mini-tear right now, it's both painful and depressing to read the excessively negative assessment a second time. Just keep it private at that point, OK?
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 17, 2017 23:29:27 GMT -5
So - last 10 games - Hanley is 8 for 40. That's .200. 13 Ks 3 doubles, 1 HR, 6 RBI. The last game he took 11 pitches in 4 AB and his ineffectiveness meant Devers led off 3 innings.
Or are non-sabr minded people not allowed to be fans and call it like we see it in the heat of the moment?
I also suspect it is not so much about Hanley not playing, but Hanley batting clean up.
So where is the mini-tear?
|
|
|
Post by theghostofjoecronin on Aug 18, 2017 6:33:38 GMT -5
The best part about the Cardinal series is that they were 8-1 in their previous 9 games before facing us. Hopefully we can keep playing like that for the weekend series vs the Yanks.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 18, 2017 9:11:51 GMT -5
The last 3 times I've posted in the game log, has been 3 walk offs Please post every game day. I am not superstitious but the trend is your friend. I can't tonight but it might be rained out anyway. Going to see Brian Regan and then a beer fest tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 18, 2017 9:27:39 GMT -5
You keep backing him, which is fine, we all want him to succeed. Others are seeing it in a different view, which should be equally fine. We can only really hope for improvement, because he's 5th in slugging for DH"s and he has driven in 46 runs. I know nobody respect's RBI's anymore, but he has been in or near the cleanup spot all year long, and that isn't carrying the water. My problem is that the "different view" that you and others are seeing him from doesn't correspond to reality. So, no, it's not "equally fine," no more than "alternative facts" are equally fine. You are focusing on two games in NYC where he went 0/9, BB, 6 SO, and the game you were watching in which he was in the process of going 0/4. The problem with focusing on those three games where he drove you crazy with his struggles is that in the other five games he's played since August 3, he's hit .368 / .478 / .684. "Hanley is killing this team." Is that true? It was on-target last night, where he had a Win Probability Added of -0.28. The problem is, in his previous 7 games, he was +0.08, which is equivalent to +1.5 wins above average over a season, which isn't great for a cleanup hitter in a good line-up but isn't bad either. Like Jim Rice, he's never been much of a clutch hitter. According to FanGraphs, his career WPA if he were an average clutch hitter would be +2.58 per 150 games but the actual figure has been +2.10. I'm actually not a big champion of Hanley. If Pedey comes back in September I want to see him batting 7th and sharing DH with Brentz and, when he's not otherwise in the lineup, Nunez. In fact, I'd change 4 to 7 to Devers, Bogaerts, Moreland, Hanley as soon as tomorrow. That's probably exactly what you and the other Hanley doubters would suggest. What I am actually a big champion of is rationally defensible statements. The notion that JF is at fault for batting Hanley cleanup this game is not one of them (and I'm obviously no kind of JF champion, either). He had an 894 OPS in his previous 7 games and had singled, doubled, and walked the previous game. You guys are angrily asking "why is Hanley hitting fourth tonight?" All I'm trying to do is give you the perfectly good answer. Eric, he's batting .180 ish with RISP. I'm not sure what else is there to say other than he should not be batting in a prime spot in the order right now.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 18, 2017 11:44:59 GMT -5
Just keep it private at that point, OK? Just a friendly reminder that posters should not be telling other posters what they can and can not post. Not everyone will agree with your perspective, folks will post stuff that you disagree with, and that's OK as long as they're doing so within the parameters of the ground rules. Recognize and accept that folks may disagree with you. Thanks.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,951
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 19, 2017 4:11:09 GMT -5
Just keep it private at that point, OK? Just a friendly reminder that posters should not be telling other posters what they can and can not post. Not everyone will agree with your perspective, folks will post stuff that you disagree with, and that's OK as long as they're doing so within the parameters of the ground rules. Recognize and accept that folks may disagree with you. Thanks. jmei, I think the point I was making is very close to one that mods have made. It's not within the ground rules to simply repeat your opinion or rehash your old arguments in a back-and-forth discussion; you're supposed to either add something constructive or agree to disagree. That point was just made. So, how would the principle be different in scattered comments in a series thread? If someone gives an opinion on Tuesday about the what the team needs to do, and its pointed out that there's no good rationale for it ... isn't it tiresome to hear the same thing again the next night? (Or later in the same game?) And I'm not talking about simply venting your frustration and disappointment. That's always kosher. Compare these two sequences of posts (the first of which I have no problem with): A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. vs. A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. He's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. How is that less tiresome than doing the same thing in a back-and-forth? It's the only aspect of posting behavior that bugs me.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,951
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 19, 2017 4:20:51 GMT -5
My problem is that the "different view" that you and others are seeing him from doesn't correspond to reality. So, no, it's not "equally fine," no more than "alternative facts" are equally fine. You are focusing on two games in NYC where he went 0/9, BB, 6 SO, and the game you were watching in which he was in the process of going 0/4. The problem with focusing on those three games where he drove you crazy with his struggles is that in the other five games he's played since August 3, he's hit .368 / .478 / .684. "Hanley is killing this team." Is that true? It was on-target last night, where he had a Win Probability Added of -0.28. The problem is, in his previous 7 games, he was +0.08, which is equivalent to +1.5 wins above average over a season, which isn't great for a cleanup hitter in a good line-up but isn't bad either. Like Jim Rice, he's never been much of a clutch hitter. According to FanGraphs, his career WPA if he were an average clutch hitter would be +2.58 per 150 games but the actual figure has been +2.10. I'm actually not a big champion of Hanley. If Pedey comes back in September I want to see him batting 7th and sharing DH with Brentz and, when he's not otherwise in the lineup, Nunez. In fact, I'd change 4 to 7 to Devers, Bogaerts, Moreland, Hanley as soon as tomorrow. That's probably exactly what you and the other Hanley doubters would suggest. What I am actually a big champion of is rationally defensible statements. The notion that JF is at fault for batting Hanley cleanup this game is not one of them (and I'm obviously no kind of JF champion, either). He had an 894 OPS in his previous 7 games and had singled, doubled, and walked the previous game. You guys are angrily asking "why is Hanley hitting fourth tonight?" All I'm trying to do is give you the perfectly good answer. Eric, he's batting .180 ish with RISP. I'm not sure what else is there to say other than he should not be batting in a prime spot in the order right now. Well, I did say I'd drop him to 7 (or 6). Too many better hitters on the team. His really bad numbers with RISP are a SSS fluke, but, as I said, he's a bit subpar at it, relatively, in the long run. I was arguing very specifically about where he hit in one specific game. That was before Xander came out of his funk, and when it looked like Hanley had come out of his. And I'll obviously argue against the notion that he's a net negative in the lineup. He's still easily the best option at DH vs. RHP and at 1B vs LHP. (The former will be tweaked when Pedey comes back.) And at 6 or 7 he'd be better than what most teams have there. And he's still capable of going on a tear and being a bit of a force for a while.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 19, 2017 7:39:25 GMT -5
Just a friendly reminder that posters should not be telling other posters what they can and can not post. Not everyone will agree with your perspective, folks will post stuff that you disagree with, and that's OK as long as they're doing so within the parameters of the ground rules. Recognize and accept that folks may disagree with you. Thanks. jmei, I think the point I was making is very close to one that mods have made. It's not within the ground rules to simply repeat your opinion or rehash your old arguments in a back-and-forth discussion; you're supposed to either add something constructive or agree to disagree. That point was just made. So, how would the principle be different in scattered comments in a series thread? If someone gives an opinion on Tuesday about the what the team needs to do, and its pointed out that there's no good rationale for it ... isn't it tiresome to hear the same thing again the next night? (Or later in the same game?) And I'm not talking about simply venting your frustration and disappointment. That's always kosher. Compare these two sequences of posts (the first of which I have no problem with): A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. vs. A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. He's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. How is that less tiresome than doing the same thing in a back-and-forth? It's the only aspect of posting behavior that bugs me. Looking at your sequence you posted the first one you're fine with because A changes what he says slightly because you have used your data to absolutely convince him that he's mistaken. Did it occur to you that A might not be convinced by B because perhaps the sample size provided by B might be too small for him to change his overall viewpoint? The part of B was played by you, particularly in regards to somebody like Matt Barnes. Some of us wanted to see a longer body of quality work before we were convinced that there is a new Matt Barnes due to a change in his mechanics, but you acted like anybody who disagrees is blind and can't see the truth as you know it, and I found a remark you made rather insulting (I can't remember the exact remark and don't feel like spending my time researching it - but no I'm not from a different planet or blind because I don't feel super confident that Barnes in turing the corner from being a decent to good reliever to becoming a great one.) Oh, it's ok to point out where the stats may disagree with the image another person might have - keep in mind there are some people out there who are quite busy with jobs and family and don't quite have time (and/or desire) to sit down and do a math project regarding baseball (when I was younger and had much less responsibility I might have, but certainly not now, especially after crunching numbers all day), but sometimes numbers can be used in a way to support one's point than rather get to the truth, such as: A) Hanley's been killing this team for awhile B) Well he's been murdering the ball for the past week (.850 OPS or whatever) A) That's nice, but over the past 50 games he has an OPS of .700, so B doesn't really convince me that I can set my watch to major improvement over the bulk of the rest of the season. In this case it's better because A is restating his case while telling B why his data is being rejected as opposed to A simply repeating his opening remark, which would mean that he pretty much ignored your data for the reason already stated. At the end of the day A doesn't have to believe B nor does B have to claim the corner on absolute truth. B's stats could wind up being a great indicator of the future or it may mean nothing. Hanley as B points out could well be on his way to a better rest of the season or it's quite possible he simply had a good week and in a season of mediocrity, it's just an anomoly. There's enough gray to disagree on without anybody needing to offend.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 19, 2017 11:17:43 GMT -5
Just a friendly reminder that posters should not be telling other posters what they can and can not post. Not everyone will agree with your perspective, folks will post stuff that you disagree with, and that's OK as long as they're doing so within the parameters of the ground rules. Recognize and accept that folks may disagree with you. Thanks. jmei, I think the point I was making is very close to one that mods have made. It's not within the ground rules to simply repeat your opinion or rehash your old arguments in a back-and-forth discussion; you're supposed to either add something constructive or agree to disagree. That point was just made. So, how would the principle be different in scattered comments in a series thread? If someone gives an opinion on Tuesday about the what the team needs to do, and its pointed out that there's no good rationale for it ... isn't it tiresome to hear the same thing again the next night? (Or later in the same game?) And I'm not talking about simply venting your frustration and disappointment. That's always kosher. Compare these two sequences of posts (the first of which I have no problem with): A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. vs. A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. He's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. How is that less tiresome than doing the same thing in a back-and-forth? It's the only aspect of posting behavior that bugs me. You do not get to unilaterally decide that your position is unassailable and tell other posters what they can and cannot post. I mean, we're talking about player projection here (how good Hanley will be going forward), and you're citing the last eight games of Hanley's triple-slash as if that shuts down the entire discussion? You're way off base here. ADD: if it bugs you that other folks aren't tripping over themselves to fall in line after they read your brilliant analysis, maybe the internet is not the place for you.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,706
|
Post by gerry on Aug 19, 2017 12:07:57 GMT -5
Can't buy that. These are top posters who add substantially to every conversation. That they disagree Is normal and part of what makes the site valuable to those of us who are not as well grounded in data and experience. Let it roll. No one is over the top.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 19, 2017 12:28:30 GMT -5
jmei, I think the point I was making is very close to one that mods have made. It's not within the ground rules to simply repeat your opinion or rehash your old arguments in a back-and-forth discussion; you're supposed to either add something constructive or agree to disagree. That point was just made. So, how would the principle be different in scattered comments in a series thread? If someone gives an opinion on Tuesday about the what the team needs to do, and its pointed out that there's no good rationale for it ... isn't it tiresome to hear the same thing again the next night? (Or later in the same game?) And I'm not talking about simply venting your frustration and disappointment. That's always kosher. Compare these two sequences of posts (the first of which I have no problem with): A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. vs. A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. He's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. How is that less tiresome than doing the same thing in a back-and-forth? It's the only aspect of posting behavior that bugs me. You do not get to unilaterally decide that your position is unassailable and tell other posters what they can and cannot post. I mean, we're talking about player projection here (how good Hanley will be going forward), and you're citing the last eight games of Hanley's triple-slash as if that shuts down the entire discussion? You're way off base here. ADD: if it bugs you that other folks aren't tripping over themselves to fall in line after they read your brilliant analysis, maybe the internet is not the place for you. I don't agree with eric here on the Hanley issue but have no issues with his style. He certainly adds significantly to the conversation. Maybe you are a bit too thin skinned for the internet.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,951
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 19, 2017 13:21:13 GMT -5
jmei, I think the point I was making is very close to one that mods have made. It's not within the ground rules to simply repeat your opinion or rehash your old arguments in a back-and-forth discussion; you're supposed to either add something constructive or agree to disagree. That point was just made. So, how would the principle be different in scattered comments in a series thread? If someone gives an opinion on Tuesday about the what the team needs to do, and its pointed out that there's no good rationale for it ... isn't it tiresome to hear the same thing again the next night? (Or later in the same game?) And I'm not talking about simply venting your frustration and disappointment. That's always kosher. Compare these two sequences of posts (the first of which I have no problem with): A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. vs. A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. He's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. How is that less tiresome than doing the same thing in a back-and-forth? It's the only aspect of posting behavior that bugs me. You do not get to unilaterally decide that your position is unassailable and tell other posters what they can and cannot post. I mean, we're talking about player projection here (how good Hanley will be going forward), and you're citing the last eight games of Hanley's triple-slash as if that shuts down the entire discussion? You're way off base here. ADD: if it bugs you that other folks aren't tripping over themselves to fall in line after they read your brilliant analysis, maybe the internet is not the place for you. Still missing my point. To put it even finer: "Another crap at bat for Hanley. I know he was hot but that was meaningless. He needs to be benched." PERFECTLY OK. Because it's concordant with f-ing reality. It's two facts and then two perfectly defensible opinions, neither of which need elaboration. This is very different from a fact, an untruth (yup, an "alternative fact"), and an opinion which absolutely seems to be based on the untruth. Admittedly I've always been sensitive to people who repeat stuff that's demonstrably untrue, after it's been pointed out to them. And admittedly I'm even more sensitive when we have a President who literally does that on a nearly daily basis. I don't expect people to "fall in line with my brilliant analysis." That would actually be really boring (and you're one of the best at challenging me.) I do expect people to accept simple facts when they have been pointed out.* In terms of a code of conduct here, I would heartily endorse "try to pay attention of matters of fact and try not to repeat statements that have been shown to be untrue." All that does is burn bandwidth. And to return to the larger issue, having people believe what is true, rather than what isn't true, is essentially the prerequisite for all effective human behavior, both talk and action. This board is 95% very high-level discussion of what is true and what isn't true about the Red Sox and their prospects. All I am asking is that we discourage people from repeating the stuff that has been established as untrue. *Admittedly, sometimes it's unclear that people have gotten the memo. The next time we talk about a reliever-to-starter conversion, we'll probably still be pointing out to people that it plainly didn't ruin Daniel Bard, since his last month as a reliever was unimaginably awful and his first month as a starter quite good, and that he was later diagnosed with a serious medical condition that had already begun and which essentially ended his career. Maybe we need a wiki for "SoxProspects Myths" that we can point people to.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 19, 2017 13:39:18 GMT -5
What was repeated that was demonstrably untrue? You point out that Hanley has hit well for two weeks. Other poster responds that that doesn't mean he should be hitting cleanup, noting that "Hanley is most likely a regressed hitter from his prime, who is prone to streakiness" and "Well, I, and others will remark about the season in sum, and you and others can remark about 2 weeks of the season." You then go off on a rant about "alternative facts." This is not an example of folks denying facts. It's a player projection discussion where no single stat is dispositive.
Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm fine with the substantive discussion. What I object to is the inability to tolerate legitimate disagreement.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,951
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 19, 2017 13:47:00 GMT -5
jmei, I think the point I was making is very close to one that mods have made. It's not within the ground rules to simply repeat your opinion or rehash your old arguments in a back-and-forth discussion; you're supposed to either add something constructive or agree to disagree. That point was just made. So, how would the principle be different in scattered comments in a series thread? If someone gives an opinion on Tuesday about the what the team needs to do, and its pointed out that there's no good rationale for it ... isn't it tiresome to hear the same thing again the next night? (Or later in the same game?) And I'm not talking about simply venting your frustration and disappointment. That's always kosher. Compare these two sequences of posts (the first of which I have no problem with): A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. vs. A: Hanley, give me a break! Another terrible PA. Hanley's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. B: Actually, he's been hot for his last 8 games. [Data] A (next night): Another crap at bat for Hanley. He's been killing this team for a while and needs to be benched. How is that less tiresome than doing the same thing in a back-and-forth? It's the only aspect of posting behavior that bugs me. Looking at your sequence you posted the first one you're fine with because A changes what he says slightly because you have used your data to absolutely convince him that he's mistaken. Did it occur to you that A might not be convinced by B because perhaps the sample size provided by B might be too small for him to change his overall viewpoint? The part of B was played by you, particularly in regards to somebody like Matt Barnes. Some of us wanted to see a longer body of quality work before we were convinced that there is a new Matt Barnes due to a change in his mechanics, but you acted like anybody who disagrees is blind and can't see the truth as you know it, and I found a remark you made rather insulting (I can't remember the exact remark and don't feel like spending my time researching it - but no I'm not from a different planet or blind because I don't feel super confident that Barnes in turing the corner from being a decent to good reliever to becoming a great one.) Oh, it's ok to point out where the stats may disagree with the image another person might have - keep in mind there are some people out there who are quite busy with jobs and family and don't quite have time (and/or desire) to sit down and do a math project regarding baseball (when I was younger and had much less responsibility I might have, but certainly not now, especially after crunching numbers all day), but sometimes numbers can be used in a way to support one's point than rather get to the truth, such as: A) Hanley's been killing this team for awhile B) Well he's been murdering the ball for the past week (.850 OPS or whatever) A) That's nice, but over the past 50 games he has an OPS of .700, so B doesn't really convince me that I can set my watch to major improvement over the bulk of the rest of the season. In this case it's better because A is restating his case while telling B why his data is being rejected as opposed to A simply repeating his opening remark, which would mean that he pretty much ignored your data for the reason already stated. At the end of the day A doesn't have to believe B nor does B have to claim the corner on absolute truth. B's stats could wind up being a great indicator of the future or it may mean nothing. Hanley as B points out could well be on his way to a better rest of the season or it's quite possible he simply had a good week and in a season of mediocrity, it's just an anomoly. There's enough gray to disagree on without anybody needing to offend. I don't have a problem with any of that. So maybe we're just dealing with a language use problem here. I do go to the trouble of looking up numbers (largely because I can do it super quick after doing it for so many years). I understand that other's don't. I understand that my numbers may be regarded as irrelevant because of SSS, changed circumstances, etc. But you need to say that. Or at least give people a hint! It's true that sometimes we type stuff and we know the context and we're unaware that others don't. I know I sometimes come across as arrogant, which is 100% not true -- I just love a good argument and I'm always forceful with it, but I'll always change my mind when the facts lead that way.* Arrogant people think they're always right. I just always think I'm right until I'm shown to be wrong*. Why wouldn't you do otherwise? Now, what people don't see is all the stuff I type and then re-read and say "holy crap, does that sound arrogant!" and then change. Obviously, I'm not perfect at it. So maybe all I'm really asking is that people look at their posts and ask, "does this sound like I'm ignoring the last point made in the argument?" Because that's really frustrating and annoying to the other party. Someone does work to find facts that they feel challenges your opinion! If you feel the facts don't actually do so, at least try to acknowledge that you're aware of the facts. *At some point you may or may not see a revised take on Barnes, but the short version is that he seems to have some real problems at present with both pitching on the road and in high leverage. Those should both be fixable, so I'll stand by my analysis that he has 8th inning talent now, but at present I don't think the head has caught up to the arm. The home / road split is new this year and is either a SSS fluke, or related to behavior, such as not sleeping right on the road. "Clutch" problems are almost always transient -- you lose some confidence, and it gets in your head -- and it's way too soon to decide he'll never have the cajones to protect a 1-run lead. But for now, yes, I'd try to keep him away from that.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,999
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 19, 2017 16:45:26 GMT -5
Eric has great strengths and occasionally yields to his weaknesses. It's good for everyone if he is called on the latter, which can detract from the former.
|
|
|