TheLeviathan

Jesus Dave, sarcasm. Unless your post was sarcasm of my sarcasm in which case I just had a small blood vessel pop in my brain from the awesomeness......

Well, other than my secret undying hatred of you and your Ponderholicness.

I think many of us find that love not as strong as you do in fact. Particularly with our Twins.

I'll keep that in mind kab, I think that's more or less what I was going for. There is going to be an exodus at this pace, be nice to keep hearing at least some of the baseball insights of this crew somewhere.

I really hope if one of those stud MLBs is at 23 that they hop all over that. That should be priority number one - receivers you can take later. Especially in this draft.

I made my thoughts known privately on this, but since this is an open dialogue, I'll say them here. I say them with some bitterness (which I will explain) but I'm trying to make it constructive. In John's last post he has a bolded area which was not previously in the rules and only later did I realize was added after I received a one week ban. For one, this bolded area is an incredibly gray/vague set of standards. I liked what John had told me at one point, "If you think it's probably the wrong thing to say, then don't say it". I think, vague though it is, it's at least understandable. However, I was warned for telling someone that their argument was "not making sense" and another poster that their line of argument was "obtuse". Given the above standard, I'm totally confused how I was banned. In fact, as I pointed out privately, John Bonnes had recently referred to Reusse as "unhinged" (a much more clear violation according to posted policy) and yet this was apparently ok. My issue is not necessarily over-moderation - it's unclear, seemingly personal moderation. If the moderators are operating from the same page and the expectations are clear, then I can either choose to live by those rules or not. But this moderation group doesn't appear to have a clear standard nor has it enforced it clearly or fairly. I have a much bigger concern with that. Also, in fairness, I certainly have been antagonistic in the past. Won't deny that. I had it out with Nick N. in private, I believe we had an understanding and I would think anyone that has looked over my posts for the last few weeks would see that I've been following the policy as closely as I can. That I would receive a one week ban for (as this board has suggested in the past is ok) attacking arguments rather than people - is baffling to me. I called an argument "clownish" and "not making sense" and I was warned. I called another one "obtuse" and received a ban. Not once did I attack the person in any of those posts. Yet I was banned. I need clarity on what will not get me banned or better clarity on what is the problem. The posted policy does not match current enforcement. So I'm bitter about it being changed mid-stream and then banning me for not following a change that was neither announced nor has been clarified. I have asked (numerous times to numerous moderators) to please illuminate what I should be doing differently. The best I have gotten was to say "not makes sense to me" rather than "not makes sense". Which, not to be glib, does not make sense to me. I await some actual clarification and hope to god something in here was not considered worthy of a ban. At this point I feel like I need to have eyes in the back of my head.

You're correct, because of Ellsbury. I think it's safe to say comping Victorino and Morneau just doesn't feel right though, IMO.

This is an unfair and inaccurate account of this discussion. That quote was only made after two attempts to say OBP > speed, speed comes into the equation when OBP is roughly equal. You resisted that characterization and spun it into the extreme position you later characterized this way: The fact is, that guy not coming around has more to do with the subsequent hitters than it does with the baserunner themselves. As a rule, it's far better to construct the top of your lineup by loading it with guys that are good at not making outs. If they happen to bring speed to the table that's a bonus and a potential tie-breaker in close analysis, but by no means should it treated in the manner you have tried to illustrate.

I'm sorry, but why be condescending when it's your point that totally misses the context of the discussion? Victorino is likely a CF and lumping Morneau in the Fielder/Pujols category is just silly. So you have two relevant examples, both of whom don't have the health concerns Morneau does and, in Swisher, more position versatility. If Morneau bounces back (and I'm really feeling positive about him) I think he'll have trouble getting more than a two year deal. Which is what the Laroche example I was suggesting was leading to - 2 years 24M with a mutual option. That seems about right for Morneau in a bounceback, I don't expect more than that on the open market.

Wouldn't something like Laroche be more likely? I can't imagine anyone gives Morneau more than three. I'd be surprised by even three years. As kab said earlier, the market the last few years hasn't been that lucrative for corner OFs/1B.

At this point, if you're eliminating players who hit for more power, have "everything else being equal", ignore general factors about the production and tendencies of players around them, and want to speak in generalities about being "speedier" - How relevant is your scenario exactly? Because hypotheticals are great, but if they aren't relevant or generalizables.......than they don't have much weight as recommendations. Which, if you remember originally, was your point. Again, what you are saying might be true, but you have so narrowly defined and defended it that it is virtually irrelevant. In baseball, all things are not equal. And in baseball run production is contingent upon more than isolated hitters - it is a team effort. I don't hide from the idea that I rely most on OBP/OPS to determine a lineup - those are the statistics with the best reflection of how well a batter avoids outs and does damage on their own. It requires far less irrelevant scenario-building.

This is the key statement to see the flaw in your argument. You're answering with "speed" because you seem pre-determined to look at the player in question's skillset rather than seeing run production for what it is: a team effort. A speedy runner can create more run-scoring opportunities, no one will deny that, but unless the player in question is stealing home frequently (I'm going to assume even in your case you're going to accept that this is not happening) than scoring runs is dependent upon the actions of the hitters that follow the player more so than with the player themselves. Hence why the more you bunch players at the top of your lineup that avoid outs (thus getting on base) the better your chances. Part of why using counting stats like runs and rbis is not a good way to evaluate a player is because those statistics are contingent on other players. Your analysis may be true, but you are using a woefully inept sample size to prove it. And it should be across the league, not a two player comparison. What may account for the difference in your example here might be totally different for the next pair. So, as a general rule, it's better to defer to guys that can get on base at a higher rate before you worry about how well they translate that into scoring.

Man was I happy to be wrong about Harvins value. Great haul!

so given kab's comments and private conversations I've had methinks we BYTOers are at the crossroads of needing what amounts to Elysian Fields II in order to keep posting. I enjoy so many of your baseball insights but we arent going to last here. so what if we combined that issue with the conversation here and talked about our own fantasy baseball and our brand of snark. No need to worry about the circumstances here and we can have some baseball intensive fun at the same time? Thoughts? I think most of us are done here - why not keep our much better baseball chatter going? Start our own new fantasy league and use that message board instead.

Nope, still being obtuse. (Or do I need to say "obtuse to me" lest I be threatened?) Twisting reality to fit your point of view and then claiming you aren't twisting reality is, almost by definition, obtuse. You know that how? If this was truly welcome, you wouldn't be responding to anyone be it nick, Puck, chief, psuedo, or anyone else. But you've opted to take issue with those claims instead.

Given that Marshall landed a third, I think the odds of Harvin landing a late second and a first is something far less than remote.

I was going to say something akin to this. Chief was right, the real enemy of a team is apathy. But apathy isn't just a cold shoulder to the team, it's also in the form of being so committed to being this ideal of "fan" that you utterly ignore issues that can and SHOULD be criticized so as not to appear negative. Criticism, even harsh criticism, can be productive and positive. This approach, and many on this board seem to possess it, that anything critical or skeptical should be treated as a form of mutiny on their fanhood is completely absurd. But more than that, it is actually LESS helpful to our favorite team. Our ballclub would be better, now and in the future, if it understood why their "best" free agency move is being panned rather than celebrated. The hope being that if we criticize it and detail why it was an awful baseball decision - perhaps their decision making gets better! Better baseball decisions lead to a better baseball team. Pie-in-the-sky optimism does nothing to help this team. You can lend this analogy to anything - constructive criticism can make for better people. Blind back-patting to keep up a facade of positivity is just another form of lying to someone and to yourself.

I responded privately to these "not reasonable ideas to me" (and most any other sane poster here). I will leave it there and let this silly injustice end here.

All well and good Glunn but no matter how politely a threat is issued it is still a threat: All, mind you, for a non-violation. If calling a position (note: not the person) "clownish" is somehow a violation and (far worse still) saying someone is "not making sense" are ban-able offenses is a far cry from the posted policy and more than a bit ridiculous. If you are going to allow " not makingsense to me" as some bastion of higher debate form you are guaranteed of only two things: lower quality posting (by way of driving off adults who can handle it) and constant moderating hypocrisy by way of this completely obscure standard. You will NOT eliminating feuding, nor should this be a goal. Debates, at their essence, are feuds. Your role should be preventing them from becoming personal. Which, I will repeat, did not happen here.

FWIW guys, the issue I was being threatened with bans for was dropped very quickly after a few finer points were made. I like to believe the moderating police realized their error, hence the silence after this. If nothing else, this was a fine lesson in going too far in policing dialogue. So maybe something positive came out of it.

Please god don't make them over-react to this. None of us want buttholes on the team, but nothing wrong with confidence.

He got under the skin of collection of snarky, thick-skinned jerks. I can't even fathom how the lot around here would react to him.

Considering Pelfrey's healthy is a major question mark too, I'm not so sure our pitching staff really looks that different. Worley is encouraging and I have a lot of confidence in Hendricks (more than some) but this is not a group to be excited about. If it's an improvement, it's probably a marginal one. Also, from what I can see, the pitching was awful start to finish. All we did was rotate the characters.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...... When that's your A group (minus Diamond, but even he is a wildcard to a degree) it is really discouraging.

Ah....and here I thought it was a stroke from my brain intentionally cutting off its own blood supply to try and mercifully end my pain before enduring that group for the next 6 months.