AL ERA standings

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    Your statement encouraging me to do my research (which, obviously, I already did) implies that a segment of what I wrote was not fully researched. All of it was. In your undying arrogance you keep assuming that only YOUR research is correct. Its not. There are more folks here, including me, that know baseball than just you. Its amazing that you cannot see how your writing style is arrogant.

    1-Arrogance is usually the accusation by someone with a weak argument.

    2-You mistakenly assume that I assume that only MY research is correct.  I do not make that assumption as a general rule.  When you post research and I post research, then I ALWAYS make the assumption that I have better research, because I think deeper than you do.

    Don't mistake that for arrogance.  When Moon, and Hill post numbers, I assume they are correct, both statistically and for what they imply.  I will challenge the implications of the numbers as I did with Hill and his numbers irt Aceves and Feldman, but for the most part, I accept the numbers as they are.

    Taking that to the next level up, if kimmi or Val (30 Something) post something I disagree, or if Fred posts something about a prospect, I will start off with the assumption they are right and I am wrong.  That's my history with them.

    If you or Geo posts something I disagree with, I start off with the assumption that I am right and you are wrong.

    There are posters out there that know this stuff better.  I have no problem admitting that, or accepting the fact that they are higher on the food chain than I am.  Perhaps if you did the same, you wouldn't find as much arrogance in my posts.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Your statement encouraging me to do my research (which, obviously, I already did) implies that a segment of what I wrote was not fully researched. All of it was. In your undying arrogance you keep assuming that only YOUR research is correct. Its not. There are more folks here, including me, that know baseball than just you. Its amazing that you cannot see how your writing style is arrogant.

    1-Arrogance is usually the accusation by someone with a weak argument.

    2-You mistakenly assume that I assume that only MY research is correct.  I do not make that assumption as a general rule.  When you post research and I post research, then I ALWAYS make the assumption that I have better research, because I think deeper than you do.

    Don't mistake that for arrogance.  When Moon, and Hill post numbers, I assume they are correct, both statistically and for what they imply.  I will challenge the implications of the numbers as I did with Hill and his numbers irt Aceves and Feldman, but for the most part, I accept the numbers as they are.

    Taking that to the next level up, if kimmi or Val (30 Something) post something I disagree, or if Fred posts something about a prospect, I will start off with the assumption they are right and I am wrong.  That's my history with them.

    If you or Geo posts something I disagree with, I start off with the assumption that I am right and you are wrong.

    There are posters out there that know this stuff better.  I have no problem admitting that, or accepting the fact that they are higher on the food chain than I am.  Perhaps if you did the same, you wouldn't find as much arrogance in my posts.

     



    If you or Geo posts something I disagree with, I start off with the assumption that I am right and you are wrong.

     

    Thanks for proving my point. When you post something that comments on known facts that I have posted I assume it will contain the same arrogant attitude that you generally exhibit here. You have your favorite posters here and your bias (yes, you are biased) is evident in nearly every exchange you have with some of the other posters, even when what they post is fact. The difference between you and I is that I have no such bias. I read a post, consider it, and only then decide if it is a reasonable post or if it is wrong-without the prior assumptions that you have admitted you are burdened with. That makes me a poster who is more open to the opinions of others and is why I have never been accused of the arrogance that you have been accused of by more than one poster here. The first step in changing an undesirable quality, such as arrogance, is to admit that you have it, which you did IMO when you stated that whatever Georom and I post is wrong compared to your "right" opinion. Assuming you are right and that someone else is wrong without thinking about it whatsoever defines arrogance {": an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions per the dictionary). You ASSUME you are right. Thats where you fall off the cliff. 

     Then next step is to take some concrete steps to correct the deficit. I can help you with that.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    (Dedicated to PG)

    1. KC 3.60

    2. Texas 3.68

    3. Oakland 3.80

    4. Detroit 3.84

    5. NY 3.86

    6. Boston 3.88

    League average 4.08

    Park-adjusted ERA+

    1. Texas 119

    2. KC 114

    T3. Detroit 112

    T3. Boston 112

    5. Chicago 110

    6. NY 107

     

     

     




     

     

    This is the stat I like Bob:

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/league/al/sort/savePct/type/expanded/order/true

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That stat is meaningless, and has been since 1996.

     

    Maybe ask me next year.

    [/QUOTE]


    Lol, we've been lucky.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    Assuming you are right and that someone else is wrong without thinking about it whatsoever defines arrogance 

    I disagree.  I've known some really smart people.  My assumption is that they start off being right.  My old boss was like that.  In a room full of very smart people, at the end of each discussion, they would turn to him for his opinion.  The assumption was that he was always right.

    And do you know why?  It was because he was always right.

    That doesn't preclude any chance of him being wrong, merely that the assumption is that he will be right.

    And do I disagree with you on all occasions?  No.  But when I do disagree with you, the chances are very high that I will be right and you will be wrong.

    But if you want, we can make a tag bet on it.  Anytime I disagree with you, we'll keep track of who is right.

    Any interest?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Assuming you are right and that someone else is wrong without thinking about it whatsoever defines arrogance 

    I disagree.  I've known some really smart people.  My assumption is that they start off being right.  My old boss was like that.  In a room full of very smart people, at the end of each discussion, they would turn to him for his opinion.  The assumption was that he was always right.

    And do you know why?  It was because he was always right.

    That doesn't preclude any chance of him being wrong, merely that the assumption is that he will be right.

    And do I disagree with you on all occasions?  No.  But when I do disagree with you, the chances are very high that I will be right and you will be wrong.

    But if you want, we can make a tag bet on it.  Anytime I disagree with you, we'll keep track of who is right.

    Any interest?

     



    Thats much better. Thats a reasonable discussion with another poster who is, at times, of a different opinion than you are. The only issue I have with what you said is that when we disagree its generally a matter of opinion, not fact. I do not deny facts, and I will admit that you do not deny them either. You may disagree with the conclusions reached based on those facts, but generally that falls in the realm of opinion. Take for example the post I wrote that started this debate: I posted the Sox ERA for April, May, and June. That is a matter of FACT, not opinion. You posted the team ERA from June 1 to the present; another matter of fact. You did not simply state that fact however; you accused me of not doing my research, implying that something was amiss-instead of simply stating your OPINION (which I probably would have agreed with) that since June 1 the overall team ERA has been very good. See what I mean? You do have a problem with that sometimes, assuming that your conclusions are correct without approaching the opinion of another without bias simply because of the history you have with the other poster. I think its because of our long history together which you cannot let go of, personally. Now I can debate Moon, Hill, and even Kimmi now without the acrimony that you and Four B's bring into the discussion. Why is that? Don't answer right away...give it some thought.

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to RedSoxFan88's comment:

     

    Teresa Hanafin is a devout, gunho, obsessed Red Sox fan and yet she keeps taking directions on which posters annoy Pumpsie and who should be banned. Teresa Hanafin can be emailed or phoned and Pumpsie calls her and reads her the riot act on who is a Red Sox fan and who isn't. We all know better than Teresa that Pumpsie is a faux Red Sox fan.  Pumpsie does an excellent snow job on Teresa. Maybe Teresa likes Pumpsie because her forum needs a perpetual pessimist and negative person.  Call Teresa or email her and let her know that Pumpsie is not a Red Sox fan. Shame on Teresa for selling out.



    HAHAHA...welcome back Pike. I assume you have some sort of proof that I call her to complain about other posters, right? I would love to see it. Please try to behave yourself this time around Pike. The forum has been fairly congenial in your short absence.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to RedSoxFan88's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to RedSoxFan88's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Teresa Hanafin is a devout, gunho, obsessed Red Sox fan and yet she keeps taking directions on which posters annoy Pumpsie and who should be banned. Teresa Hanafin can be emailed or phoned and Pumpsie calls her and reads her the riot act on who is a Red Sox fan and who isn't. We all know better than Teresa that Pumpsie is a faux Red Sox fan.  Pumpsie does an excellent snow job on Teresa. Maybe Teresa likes Pumpsie because her forum needs a perpetual pessimist and negative person.  Call Teresa or email her and let her know that Pumpsie is not a Red Sox fan. Shame on Teresa for selling out.

     

     



    HAHAHA...welcome back Pike. I assume you have some sort of proof that I call her to complain about other posters, right? I would love to see it. Please try to behave yourself this time around Pike. The forum has been fairly congenial in your short absence.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    You told everyone yesterday how you contacted Teresa Hanafin in order to silence all of the legit RS fans who got tired of chronic negativity and trolling.  Do I need to find your post / thread? Apparentlly you and Teresa have a thing going where she sanctions all of your negativity and juvenile name-calling and bashing of Sox players. Strange behavior from Teresa since her profile claims that she is a devout RS fan. Why would she kizz ur azz?

    [/QUOTE]


    I contacted Teresa about issue related to my inability to get on this site (no, I was not banned: it was a technical issue each time). There will be no further contact with you Pike, just reporting your obscene posts.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    T1. Tex 3.66

    T1. KC 3.66

    3. Oak 3.74

    4. Det 3.79

    5. Bos 3.82

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    T1. Tex 3.66

    T1. KC 3.66

    3. Oak 3.74

    4. Det 3.79

    5. Bos 3.82




     

    I expect both the Yankees and Sox should see an uptick by Monday.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from davidap. Show davidap's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    Why are the Royals so bad if they have such good pitching?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to davidap's comment:

    Why are the Royals so bad if they have such good pitching?




    They are 12th in runs scored. In the end you have to be able to hit the baseball as well as pitch.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Your statement encouraging me to do my research (which, obviously, I already did) implies that a segment of what I wrote was not fully researched. All of it was. In your undying arrogance you keep assuming that only YOUR research is correct. Its not. There are more folks here, including me, that know baseball than just you. Its amazing that you cannot see how your writing style is arrogant.

    1-Arrogance is usually the accusation by someone with a weak argument.

    2-You mistakenly assume that I assume that only MY research is correct.  I do not make that assumption as a general rule.  When you post research and I post research, then I ALWAYS make the assumption that I have better research, because I think deeper than you do.

    Don't mistake that for arrogance.  When Moon, and Hill post numbers, I assume they are correct, both statistically and for what they imply.  I will challenge the implications of the numbers as I did with Hill and his numbers irt Aceves and Feldman, but for the most part, I accept the numbers as they are.

    Taking that to the next level up, if kimmi or Val (30 Something) post something I disagree, or if Fred posts something about a prospect, I will start off with the assumption they are right and I am wrong.  That's my history with them.

    If you or Geo posts something I disagree with, I start off with the assumption that I am right and you are wrong.

    There are posters out there that know this stuff better.  I have no problem admitting that, or accepting the fact that they are higher on the food chain than I am.  Perhaps if you did the same, you wouldn't find as much arrogance in my posts.

     



    If you or Geo posts something I disagree with, I start off with the assumption that I am right and you are wrong.

     

    Thanks for proving my point. When you post something that comments on known facts that I have posted I assume it will contain the same arrogant attitude that you generally exhibit here. You have your favorite posters here and your bias (yes, you are biased) is evident in nearly every exchange you have with some of the other posters, even when what they post is fact. The difference between you and I is that I have no such bias. I read a post, consider it, and only then decide if it is a reasonable post or if it is wrong-without the prior assumptions that you have admitted you are burdened with. That makes me a poster who is more open to the opinions of others and is why I have never been accused of the arrogance that you have been accused of by more than one poster here. The first step in changing an undesirable quality, such as arrogance, is to admit that you have it, which you did IMO when you stated that whatever Georom and I post is wrong compared to your "right" opinion. Assuming you are right and that someone else is wrong without thinking about it whatsoever defines arrogance {": an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions per the dictionary). You ASSUME you are right. Thats where you fall off the cliff. 

     Then next step is to take some concrete steps to correct the deficit. I can help you with that.

     

     

    Like you, with your opinion of Lester, Joe B and other's opinion of you are based on history.

    Quit ignoring stats that don't agree with your predetermined opinion and that might change.

     You may wanrt to work on that whole "I never attack any poster first" thing, while you're at it.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Your statement encouraging me to do my research (which, obviously, I already did) implies that a segment of what I wrote was not fully researched. All of it was. In your undying arrogance you keep assuming that only YOUR research is correct. Its not. There are more folks here, including me, that know baseball than just you. Its amazing that you cannot see how your writing style is arrogant.

    1-Arrogance is usually the accusation by someone with a weak argument.

    2-You mistakenly assume that I assume that only MY research is correct.  I do not make that assumption as a general rule.  When you post research and I post research, then I ALWAYS make the assumption that I have better research, because I think deeper than you do.

    Don't mistake that for arrogance.  When Moon, and Hill post numbers, I assume they are correct, both statistically and for what they imply.  I will challenge the implications of the numbers as I did with Hill and his numbers irt Aceves and Feldman, but for the most part, I accept the numbers as they are.

    Taking that to the next level up, if kimmi or Val (30 Something) post something I disagree, or if Fred posts something about a prospect, I will start off with the assumption they are right and I am wrong.  That's my history with them.

    If you or Geo posts something I disagree with, I start off with the assumption that I am right and you are wrong.

    There are posters out there that know this stuff better.  I have no problem admitting that, or accepting the fact that they are higher on the food chain than I am.  Perhaps if you did the same, you wouldn't find as much arrogance in my posts.

     



    If you or Geo posts something I disagree with, I start off with the assumption that I am right and you are wrong.

     

    Thanks for proving my point. When you post something that comments on known facts that I have posted I assume it will contain the same arrogant attitude that you generally exhibit here. You have your favorite posters here and your bias (yes, you are biased) is evident in nearly every exchange you have with some of the other posters, even when what they post is fact. The difference between you and I is that I have no such bias. I read a post, consider it, and only then decide if it is a reasonable post or if it is wrong-without the prior assumptions that you have admitted you are burdened with. That makes me a poster who is more open to the opinions of others and is why I have never been accused of the arrogance that you have been accused of by more than one poster here. The first step in changing an undesirable quality, such as arrogance, is to admit that you have it, which you did IMO when you stated that whatever Georom and I post is wrong compared to your "right" opinion. Assuming you are right and that someone else is wrong without thinking about it whatsoever defines arrogance {": an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions per the dictionary). You ASSUME you are right. Thats where you fall off the cliff. 

     Then next step is to take some concrete steps to correct the deficit. I can help you with that.

     

     

    Like you, with your opinion of Lester, Joe B and other's opinion of you are based on history.

    Quit ignoring stats that don't agree with your predetermined opinion and that might change.

     You may wanrt to work on that whole "I never attack any poster first" thing, while you're at it.

     



    You and Joe B are never going to let it go ("it"=what transpired on the other forum). Thats fine. You have to live with it. I have moved on.

    As far as Lester goes, I just look at his statistics and decide. For almost two years he has been a below average SP, up until the last two games. When he can consistently pitch well I will change my opinion of him. He has to prove it.

    Your last statement deserves no further commentary and I won't spend another second doing so.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Your statement encouraging me to do my research (which, obviously, I already did) implies that a segment of what I wrote was not fully researched. All of it was. In your undying arrogance you keep assuming that only YOUR research is correct. Its not. There are more folks here, including me, that know baseball than just you. Its amazing that you cannot see how your writing style is arrogant.

    1-Arrogance is usually the accusation by someone with a weak argument.

    2-You mistakenly assume that I assume that only MY research is correct.  I do not make that assumption as a general rule.  When you post research and I post research, then I ALWAYS make the assumption that I have better research, because I think deeper than you do.

    Don't mistake that for arrogance.  When Moon, and Hill post numbers, I assume they are correct, both statistically and for what they imply.  I will challenge the implications of the numbers as I did with Hill and his numbers irt Aceves and Feldman, but for the most part, I accept the numbers as they are.

    Taking that to the next level up, if kimmi or Val (30 Something) post something I disagree, or if Fred posts something about a prospect, I will start off with the assumption they are right and I am wrong.  That's my history with them.

    If you or Geo posts something I disagree with, I start off with the assumption that I am right and you are wrong.

    There are posters out there that know this stuff better.  I have no problem admitting that, or accepting the fact that they are higher on the food chain than I am.  Perhaps if you did the same, you wouldn't find as much arrogance in my posts.

     



    If you or Geo posts something I disagree with, I start off with the assumption that I am right and you are wrong.

     

    Thanks for proving my point. When you post something that comments on known facts that I have posted I assume it will contain the same arrogant attitude that you generally exhibit here. You have your favorite posters here and your bias (yes, you are biased) is evident in nearly every exchange you have with some of the other posters, even when what they post is fact. The difference between you and I is that I have no such bias. I read a post, consider it, and only then decide if it is a reasonable post or if it is wrong-without the prior assumptions that you have admitted you are burdened with. That makes me a poster who is more open to the opinions of others and is why I have never been accused of the arrogance that you have been accused of by more than one poster here. The first step in changing an undesirable quality, such as arrogance, is to admit that you have it, which you did IMO when you stated that whatever Georom and I post is wrong compared to your "right" opinion. Assuming you are right and that someone else is wrong without thinking about it whatsoever defines arrogance {": an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions per the dictionary). You ASSUME you are right. Thats where you fall off the cliff. 

     Then next step is to take some concrete steps to correct the deficit. I can help you with that.

     

     

    Like you, with your opinion of Lester, Joe B and other's opinion of you are based on history.

    Quit ignoring stats that don't agree with your predetermined opinion and that might change.

     You may wanrt to work on that whole "I never attack any poster first" thing, while you're at it.

     

     



    You and Joe B are never going to let it go ("it"=what transpired on the other forum). Thats fine. You have to live with it. I have moved on.

     

    As far as Lester goes, I just look at his statistics and decide. For almost two years he has been a below average SP, up until the last two games. When he can consistently pitch well I will change my opinion of him. He has to prove it.

    Your last statement deserves no further commentary and I won't spend another second doing so.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yup, do what you do best, ignore what doesn't fit your story.

    All Joe did was question your research.

    You responded with a snarky remark about learning the English language.

    It'd be nice if you were actually as fair  and open minded as you like to pretend to be.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm080jEt2hc

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from kannaman. Show kannaman's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:




    LOL

     

Share