Article: Three-Bagger: Muted Mauer, Pelfrey's Problems & Pinto's Pop

[glunn]

Which no one did and if I had suggested the same degree of hyperbole to you would a little birdie be in my inbox? I said I was worried because he doesn't look like the old Mauer and with concussions this is a valid fear. One all Minnesotans should understand. Your "well duh!" response was in direct opposition to your aggressive offseason rejections of any worries about him. I don't believe Mauer's issues are a "well duh!" matter and frankly don't appreciate that approach to a valid concern.

 

Unless of course you have actual insight as to win his worrisome issues will abate. In which case please share that in whatever "well duh!" matter you'd like.

 

Please tone this down and be less personal, lest that little birdie visit your inbox.

[Mike Sixel]

Having some SP depth is not a bad thing. I don't scratch my head over signing Pelf. I scratch my head over worry about a lost investment when one pitcher doesn't pan out. The whole point of depth is insurance when someone inevitably fails.

 

Except when, you know, a bad player blocks a good player, because that bad player is signe for more than 1 year, and is on the 40 man roster, which, btw, happens all the time with this team.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That's exactly how it comes off. As has most of your Mauer-centric arguments lately. Your past tone on the same player and the same issue seem relevant to me.

 

And, again, 20 games of .680 OPS play don't invalidate my argument in any way. I'm not sure why you are blowing 20 April games out of proportion.

 

Hey, it's possible that Mauer continues to flounder compared to his previous standard. It's also entirely possible that this is a minor blip in his performance and he'll be rocking an .800+ OPS by June 1st.

 

Either way, it doesn't excuse the tone you took with me after I posted a quite reasonable post that, when looked at objectively, was not even remotely controversial.

[cmathewson]

Glad I missed all the personal jabs. I'll let the moderators take care of that. I just don't understand why reasonable arguments in favor of giving guys the benefit of the doubt are greeted with flames, but arguments to the contrary are liked a dozen times (reasonable or not). How often must we cite the rule of small sample sizes to people who favor statistical analysis over any other form of evidence?

[TheLeviathan]

Glad I missed all the personal jabs. I'll let the moderators take care of that. I just don't understand why reasonable arguments in favor of giving guys the benefit of the doubt are greeted with flames, but arguments to the contrary are liked a dozen times (reasonable or not). How often must we cite the rule of small sample sizes to people who favor statistical analysis over any other form of evidence?

 

A small sample size doesn't mean you can't worry. There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of his struggles so it is justifiable to be on either side of the issue. I don't dismiss people's confidence in him to rebound, but I don't think genuine concern about him should be dismissed either.

[Squirrel]

A small sample size doesn't mean you can't worry. There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of his struggles so it is justifiable to be on either side of the issue. I don't dismiss people's confidence in him to rebound, but I don't think genuine concern about him should be dismissed either.

 

And concern has been expressed on BOTH sides, but debates ensue as to 'how much' and that gets ridiculous. This kind of nitpicking gets things way off track very quickly and turns personal. So, for now, humour this moderator and leave the nitpicking aside, stick to your arguments, stick to the topic, and leave the personal stuff behind. And that goes for everyone, posters, moderators and admins.