TheLeviathan

Governor Moron tried to apologize for those comments.

Sniped you on that Brooks! But yeah....beyond ridiculous.

There are reams of evidence that our criminal justice system over-penalizes black men. Can I point to any one sentencing trial and say "See, the judge said right there that he gave the convicted extra years because he was black" Maybe. But the handful of instances in which I can provide clear evidence of racism are wildly outnumbered by the examples that actually populate the data. The examples that are not evidently clear and would seem otherwise banal. But the data taken as a whole allows us to see the racial elements come into play. Those unclear/banal examples are not evidently racist until we see the larger trends. Much is the same here. Stomping your foot and demanding specifics examples of racism or else it doesn't exist is missing the point completely. I doubt many judges are racist. I bet they would actively resent the notion they over-sentence black men. And yet the trend is statistically evident and valid despite whatever objections or personal feelings they have. That is part of what actual racism is: you don't have to wear a white hood and burn crosses. Sometimes you can just be part of a bad trend and refuse the self-awareness to get out of it or call out those that agree with you, but for indefensible reasons. Or just refuse to acknowledge the possibility that maybe just maybe, not everyone who shares your criticism shares the same integrity in their criticism.

Perhaps a good first step would be understanding that this isn't how biases/racism works. It can be easy to point out in this simplistic way, but rarely so. I have stereotyped no person. I will keep talking about the conversations while you keep insisting on taking it personally. I have directed it personally at no one. Also, insinuating that a white guy also gets unfair criticism meansthis cant be racist is really faulty logic too.

Well, a number of things. First, at least twice in this thread I've said one should avoid labeling anyone a racist in this conversation and we should talk about the conversation as racist, not those conversing. (Unless they make it explicit themselves of course) So most of your post is mischaracterizing. Which is surprising since part of what you quoted even says that. Secondly - this paragraph is really faulty logic. I'll try and show it with a simple example. It is a matter of fact that black men are incarcerated, for the same crimes, at a much harsher rate. So, under your logic, if I were to say "the general trend of incarceration is racist" I am therefore accusing everyone in the incarceration process - police, lawyers, judges - as racists. And you could think of far less controversial examples. "The Twins' offense is not very good this year" does not equate to "every hitter on the Twins is not very good". I don't know if the racist slant towards Sano is due to explicit or implicit biases. It is probably a wide range from none, to implicit and unknown, to implicit and somewhat aware, to explicitly aware depending upon the individual. I won't presume to know what's in someone's heart. Nor will I do so. But I will assert the conversation itself has a racist slant when we revere Kent Hrbek but concoct ways to bash Sano. When we say we can just "look" at a guy and know what's in his heart. How we can call him lazy even though he came back from Tommy John ahead of schedule, played through the death of a child, and has a miraculous life story. How we can call him "fat" and "obese" and "300 pounds" before a picture of him even surfaces and then quickly slink into a corner when the pictures prove that narrative false. I don't know what's in your heart Chief, I've known you long enough to think you probably aren't a racist. But if you are actively refusing to see how some of the tone towards Miguel is unfair and that it might be implicitly or explicitly racially motivated....well, I'd encourage you to look again. It doesn't make you racist to criticize him, but it might be possible others who are do not have such noble patterns in their thought as you.

I don't even know what that would mean.

Soak this one in for awhile. I want to laugh, but I'm struggling to do so. Ladies and Gentlemen....your 2018 GOP in a nutshell.

I think that is the plan, but you still need to have some form of offensive pressure at the same time. They've had next to none both games. And the physicality angle has been worse than I feared.

Or you see what you want to see. A lot of the arguments against Sano are predicated on vague concepts like "He doesn't want to be great" observed from afar. Why should anyone put any stock into anything so nebulous?

At the onset I thought Sano was a far better focal point for this conversation. I agree with Carole that we have to be careful accusing individual posters, that isn't productive. But my god is the tone towards Sano, in general, racially slanted.

This thread got seriously off track from the printing needs of this fellow.

Clearly we have PTRSD. (Post Terry Ryan Stress Disorder)

I predict Hughes lucks his way through a start or two and engenders enough confidence that we are forced to endure a half dozen train wrecks before we finally see him cut.

Great piece and congrats to Mauer. There was a time I thought he had a shot at 3,000 hits and then a stretch where I thought 2,000 was a pipedream. It's been a rollercoaster, but I hope he can string together another 3-5 years and give himself a shot at the Hall.

Perhaps you shouldn't put so much stock into perceptions gathered from such a distance.

I'm not sure you want the answer to that.

I hope he's charged with attempted murder.

What "evidence" you have is still based almost entirely in speculation. That's fine, but it's much weaker evidence. What I actually said was that saying it's "likely" to happen flies in the face of evidence. A phrase which typically means the vast majority of evidence available is on the other side of your opinion. And, further, I explicitly said there is a chance it's true. What I have taken issue with is the word "likely". So I'll reiterate: The idea that Trevor May, who hasn't started a baseball game in two years or even pitched in one for well over a year, and a promising prospect who hasn't risen above AA will "likely" be better than Ervin Santana flies in the face of majority of the evidence we have. Could it happen? Yes. Is it likely to happen? That's silly hyperbole.

Eh, WAR. A 124 wRC+ tells me a lot more about him. Does he need to cut down on Ks? Sure. Does he need to stay healthy? Sure. He's not a perfect player, but I'm not aware of many of them not named "Trout".

Not at all. The OPS you posted would've been good enough for top 40 in all of baseball last year. It's roughly Brian Dozier's slash line the last few years. I can't recall you rushing to downplay what kind of player he has been. Or decrying him as not a real "headliner". Or the board posting threads about that..... But Miguel Sano requires us to compare him to a lock HOFer as a negative. Oy vey.

Well, I'll admit, that's the first time I've heard someone with an .850 OPS is not that good.

Is Miguel Cabrera the floor for "headlining"? Do you have to be a lock HOF player to headline a team? He can't just be really, really good?

I just don't understand how you can simultaneously downplay the upside of a guy with an OPS over .900 while celebrating a dude with a .442 OPS. I realize my mistake is trying to rationalize here and self-inflicting the punishment.....

You have to be Miguel Cabrera to be a headliner? And how does Buck make that list?

Pfft....we haven't even started panicking about Buxton. Until sometime in the next 24 hours I'm sure.