Re: Catchers: A View from the Mound
posted at 9/28/2011 11:52 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Catchers: A View from the Mound
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Catchers: A View from the Mound : With all due respect Harness, where has your insight been this year
? How many poor projections have you had? How many comments have you had which were way off? How many "really poor comments"? What did you contribute this year besides being a good politician? Baltimore? All the horses azz stuff, high on your pulpit CERA stuff ad nauseum. Navarro? 90% likely to close out the wild card last week. Comments on me not being able to do simple math and then we find out a week later that it looks like I was doing that math just fine. Comment after comment which were just flat out wrong. Expitch was a complete azz on the ellsbury thread and where were any of you while that thread was taken completely off topic and that was a good thread also BTW. 8-10 pages of vitriol over nothing. And you come on there saying he's rookie of the year. Everything I said on that thread was accurate and he just went on and on. What is different Harness? Between that thread and this thread harness. And you said his comments would make me a better poster. Hello? That was inappropriate and pure BS also. It was a complete waste of my time, and everyone else's time who was reading it. He deserves my response. What the he ll is the difference between an opinion about a player and a person's projection about a player? He had an "opinion" that Navarro might help the sox at SS and wanted him to play, as did you. What is different about that and a player "projection". I had an "opinion" that it was not a good idea, and the Redsox had such a high opinion of that option they gave him a total of 2 innings at SS before shipping him out. It was all horse's azz stuff. He backed up nothing. He hasn't shown any insight about these players.
He has written some nice prose about being a pitcher, which may or may not be true as far as I can see. If he stretched the truth bigtime on the Ellsbury thread why wouldn't he be stretching the truth here? Maybe he is who he says he is, and maybe he is not. We have all flavors here don't we. Who the heck knows. What I do know is that he wasted my time all last week. What I know is that you harness, didn't help at all. In fact, you made it worse. What I know is that no amount of fact made a shred of difference to him, it was argue page after page over nothing. It should be about the truth. Facts should matter. And when someone is stretching the truth, distorting or ignoring the facts, they they should be called on the table by all posters and not be called rookie poster of the year.
Posted by Boomerangsdotcom
What the hell does my insight have anything to do with your degrading comment?
You took up on this thread where you left off on yours. A discussion gets out of hand. Happens all the time. Don't blame me for not cutting into a heated debate...or hold me responsible for wasting UR
You are the one who made the conscious decision to continue the other discussion. Not me. I've had similar debates last for weeks. I don't expect others to diffuse it.
In fact, I ask folks to stay clear if it gets nasty. Blaming me is cheap, and beneath you.
FWIW, I tried to show the merits of the discussion. I also tried to quantify the issue, to put it into another perspective. Why should that make me the subject of UR anger? MY R.O.Y. comment was reflective of his past work. You see nothing but disdain, as he does. That's gonna blacken and blind you to the fact that several respected posters have been highly complimentary of his contributions on this and other threads. It's not just me. Far from it. That's
I never said his comments would make you a better poster. That's what 791 said about mine. Get the real
facts straight. 791 would never have admitted it at the time. No more than you would now.
As for insight
, that's a matter of opinion. Posting from personal experience is insightful to those who have never toed the rubber. Insight regarding players on this chat board is limited. We all go by the same criteria: What we read and what the numbers and on-field performance reflect.
As for my personal projections, I have no idea what that has to do with anything, but I'll tell you anyway. I bombed on the longshot O's projection.
I was right about the Rays. I was right about the Angles and their venue-enhanced pitching. I was for using reliever Hill in more critical role early on. Had Tito done that, the team wouldn't be in the mess they are in. That unto itself might be the season.
I took positions trying to show the importance of venue. "CERA" again panned out as the pitchers performed far better with Tek. Moon
offered any poster 3-1 odds at the beginning of the season that such would occur. I noticed you didn't take him up on it. Weren't UR anti-CERA articles by "experts" enough to put UR money where UR mouth was? You avoided reading a thread uncovering compelling data about it, despite my urging. Wonder why. Gee, ya think the fact the team played .667 ball with Tek this year - as opposed to .505 w/Salty was important? Damn that "CERA pulpit".
You, projected Navarro low. You got on a wooden high horse by using the fact the FO didn't use him at SS. The FO has made mistakes in the past. Arroyo pitching for CINN is one of many. Navarro could be another. Until he gets the opportunity at the M.L. level, nothing is decided. Absolutely nothing.
Oh, and for future reference, if this pitching collapse turns out to be heavily contributed to by our wonderful
pitching coach, I made my position about him very clear back in May
. I said he's detrimental and his affect on the pitching staff would likely continue.
With all that, I still say projections are better suited for horse players.
There will always be hit or miss. To use that as a standard for determining the quality of a contributing poster is