Yeah, I don't know where the bickering accusation came from either, if this isn't a policy-approved exchange we should just shut this whole thing down.
To your point, I'm not claiming to be objective. I know the play of this team has left a bad taste in my mouth and I judge it accordingly. None of that changes this team's record, run differential, and minimal improvement statistically. Those are objective stats that don't support your claim that good baseball is being played. You have to make your argument in direct opposition to the strong trend that this just isn't a very good baseball team yet.
Some players certainly do not fit the overall trend of the team and I understand holding on to those beacons of hope as what you stress about going forward. But the original point was that we are so accustomed to awful baseball that even the slight perception of less awful play somehow makes the jump to "good".
It's like your wife was trying to cook you the best damn steak you ever had. The last three years it's been little more than a pile of burnt ash on a plate. This year she managed to at least keep it at a stage that could be called "meat" but it's still burnt leather. But hey, she looked up a mean garlic butter recipe to pair with it and that stuff was great! Now we just need to get a little closer to medium-rare and we got ourselves a good meal. Calling that burn leather "good" to your wife might save you a trip to the couch, but no one here will send you to the couch for calling a spade a spade.
Wow. I'm smiling as I write this:
1. The original claim was that a lot of us are confused. That when we see and point out positive things, especially moments of good baseball or improvement, we have jumped into a delusional realm and are seeing good baseball where very very obviously mostly bad baseball and a smattering of mediocre baseball is being played. This is a false claim, and frankly, it's a bit insulting to our fellow members who the claimants contend fit in this category. I reject the condescending implication of this description. Levi, you went so far as to describe me as having my head in the sand. I didn't take great offense at that, but certainly wouldn't return the insult.
2. You're putting generalized claims in my mouth, you big meany! I NEVER have directly opposed an argument that "this" isn't good baseball! I NEVER claimed that good baseball is being played. I pointed out how obvious the bad baseball meme is, and how tiring it is to hear it ad infinitum. And wasn't it me that suggested that certain players don't fit the overall trend of bad baseball? One of the differences between us is that you can readily describe players fitting the trend of bad baseball as such, but the players who fit the concept of good baseball are only "beacons of hope". Stats are stats, and everything else is just hope? Give me credit for what I said rather than painting a disparaging portrait with what I didn't say, OK? ")
3. You still insist that statistics are objective. Stats are no more objective than they are gluttonous or lazy or charitable. Giving stats this lofty human status of objectivity serves the purpose, intentional or not, of establishing superiority to an argument. It denigrates equally valuable and credible qualitative information, intentionally or not. As I said, it's my pet peeve at TD.
4. Where one person sees burnt leather, another sees an overdone steak. Why is it that, in your mind, the guy who sees burnt leather is calling a spade a spade and those of us who see an overdone steak are disingenuous? That's condescending and insulting, my friend. And why aren't you cooking your own damn steak?
And diehard, Levi and I are still being respectful, even if he wouldn't come to my birthday party.
Edited by birdwatcher, 24 August 2014 - 09:45 AM.