GDT 7 /14 GIANTS vs STROS

[msgkings322]

Irrespective of that argument -- I have no dog in the fight -- the fact that you were "afraid he'd hit like he did in Fresno" is tacit admission of FUD.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

This is getting a little silly. So anyone who posts something pessimistic/negative about anything is NolanNonsense/FUD slime?

Why can't someone be worried that a rookie won't hit too well in the bigs without being labelled a Nolan-y pantshitter?

 

[msgkings322]

Oh, and Marco: that is not the definition of "Straw Man" fallacy -- it's the definition of "Shifting Ground" fallacy. If you're going to use the terms, please use them correctly. Otherwise, it's just fine to say "you changed the argument midstream."

And when did this place turn into a freaking classroom? We're supposed to be a bunch of guys at a sports bar yakking about the Giants (or whatever else).

All y'all need to just have your orgy and get it over with!

:bump2:

 

[MarcoPolo]

Irrespective of that argument -- I have no dog in the fight -- the fact that you were "afraid he'd hit like he did in Fresno" is tacit admission of FUD.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Fear that he wouldn't hit well
Uncertainty that he had all the needed tools
Doubt that he would be successful

Yes.

But not "FUD" in the marketing/general sense of stirring up shit and making false, negative statements to "sell" something. I honestly was afraid that he wasn't ready, and that he would do poorly.

 

[tzill]

This is getting a little silly. So anyone who posts something pessimistic/negative about anything is NolanNonsense/FUD slime?

Why can't someone be worried that a rookie won't hit too well in the bigs without being labelled a Nolan-y pantshitter?

I wasn't using FUD in reference to Nolan, but rather in its classic sense. Completely OK to pantshat, especially in the GDT. Less acceptable to do so globally.

Just my opinion.

 

[msgkings322]

I wasn't using FUD in reference to Nolan, but rather in its classic sense. Completely OK to pantshat, especially in the GDT. Less acceptable to do so globally.

Just my opinion.

I hear ya, but I'm more questioning why any little negative comment = pantshatting. If you think pantshatting is ok especailly in the GDT, fine. But does a comment like 'I'm not seeing Chez3/Crawdad/whoever being able to hit in the majors yet' deserve to get called that? It's just a comment, an opinion, it's not FUD or shatting or whatever.

I guess there's gotta be space for people to have some pessimism without getting ticketed by the FUD police.

 

[tzill]

I hear ya, but I'm more questioning why any little negative comment = pantshatting. If you think pantshatting is ok especailly in the GDT, fine. But does a comment like 'I'm not seeing Chez3/Crawdad/whoever being able to hit in the majors yet' deserve to get called that? It's just a comment, an opinion, it's not FUD or shatting or whatever.

I guess there's gotta be space for people to have some pessimism without getting ticketed by the FUD police.

I hear ya, and I'm not upset about it. I guess it's the wording and the timing that was odd. "I'm afraid" and right as he get hot and then goes on the DL.

Just felt odd to read it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I hear ya, and I'm not upset about it. I guess it's the wording and the timing that was odd. "I'm afraid" and right as he get hot and then goes on the DL.

Just felt odd to read it.

whoa, whoa, WHOA.

I made the classic "stats up to the AS break" post. I didn't pick it out of my ass. "Half season stats" are VERY common.

"I'm afraid" post was made BACK IN MARCH. It only came up (was reposted) because some piece of shit said I only made one random, vague comment on Sanchez back in March and was "misremembering", so I quoted actual posts from back in March. Then some other piece of shit decided I didn't define what failure was for a young rookie, so it was trotted out again. Don't blame me for pointing out asshole behavior and as a side-effect proof of something else appears.

I posted my "up to the AS break" right after the AS break, and before "he get hot and then goes on the DL".

As I have said over and over, all my quotes were about showing the claims about my posts were completely false. And NOT (as I posted several times) to argue one way or another whether Hector should be in SF *now* or not.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In fact, tzill, your post comforts me. I have been trying to defend my "character" but I was wondering if it was all a wasted effort because maybe I was mentally exaggerating the effect of the attacking posts. Now I see that those sleezeball posts DID have an effect on the board's members and their impression of me, and that I was right to defend "my honor" from the lying attacks.

 

[filosofy29]

My first and last take on the recent lack of respect and in-fighting in posts.....guys, let it go. Nothing changes if someone is right or wrong on the internet (we still go home and love our families and friends and watching the Giants). A lot of times, two very smart people can disagree. There have been some pretty harsh exchanges and arguments recently and I've tried to stay out of them (both in this thread and the Rosterbation thread) because really, it's none of my fecking business. That said, I think we should try and nip these in the bud. We don't always have to get along nor agree here, but I think we can all try and respect each other. To Marco, for what it's worth, I respect and appreciate you, gp and Epic V a ton and I think you all bring a lot to the board. Sometimes "typed opinions" don't always come across the way we want them to. No need to attack each other.

My humble opinion Marco, if you feel like you're getting misrepresented or that an argument isn't going to go anywhere, just ignore. I thought I had a pretty decent argument that Bourne would do much better here at Phone Booth Park than Rowand would.....or at least, I hardly thought it was a dubious argument. That said, when I realized that it wasn't going to come to a compromised conclusion, I just gave it up.....all in all, most of us were agreeing on the main point.....Bourne shouldn't be a Giant next year for what it will cost.

I totally respect the fact that you, Epic and gp are all smart and good posters with educated opinions and you all aren't afraid to back up your opinions. Those are all admirable qualities and they make you great posters and good for our Message Board community. That said, I think sometimes we need to let things be and realize that we're not always going to agree.....and it's all good.

 

[MarcoPolo]

OK, it's obvious, filosofy29 wins.

Thanks for the reality check.

PS: Sanchez's line today is : .281/.286/.383/.669

 

[MarcoPolo]

My issue wasn't that people did or didn't go along with my argument - my problem was that people misrepresented what I said, and basically called me a liar (IMHO). And that pissed me off royally. And that started this long road. An apology concerning intention, or even a simple "oops I was wrong" would have stopped all of this.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

My first and last take on the recent lack of respect and in-fighting in posts.....guys, let it go.

I appreciate the olive branch Filo,

but...someone's glasses are still fogged up...

My issue wasn't that people did or didn't go along with my argument - my problem was that people misrepresented what I said, and basically called me a liar (IMHO). And that pissed me off royally. And that started this long road. An apology concerning intention, or even a simple "oops I was wrong" would have stopped all of this.

Marco, I am going to ask you a question.

If I am understanding your post, you may have no problem in knowing that your assessment of Chez3 back in the ST thread was wrong (meaningless Fresno stint) and still is wrong pre All-Star line by the same reasoning (approx 130 AB being insufficient).

Your contention (if I have this correctly) is that you said something regarding the Fresno stat line and that we shouldn't be misquoting you; even if you're dead wrong. Instead, board members should acknowledge your wrong assessments and make sure that next time they quote you, they should do so word for word so as there are no misunderstanding in how wrong you really were. Do I have this right?

If that is the case then I applaud you for your accuracy. I have to say I am sufficiently intrigued and fascinated that someone would go out of their way to make sure we get their wrong assessment correctly. In a weird sort of way, I can definitely appreciate that. It's going to take some time to adjust, however.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I see that this is just provocation at this point. End Of Story.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sorry to everybody about the way this thread went, but I get hot when called a liar. I went to an extreme to point out all the incorrect comments about my posts ... but I really get chaffed about being called a liar.

Again, sorry.

 

[Stokes1931]

Sorry to everybody about the way this thread went, but I get hot when called a liar. I went to an extreme to point out all the incorrect comments about my posts ... but I really get chaffed about being called a liar.

Again, sorry.

The Giants have now won 5 in a row, scoring 18 runs in the last two games alone. Let's have fun with that. While the arguments are interesting, this board is about the Giants, not about us. Carry on.

 

[calsnowskier]

The Giants have now won 5 in a row, scoring 18 runs in the last two games alone. Let's have fun with that. While the arguments are interesting, this board is about the Giants, not about us. Carry on.

speak for yourself...

 

[SFAnthem]

speak for yourself...

sorry stokes, that one caught me off guard.

 

[MarcoPolo]

sorry stokes, that one caught me off guard.

Yeah, it's a good thing I wasn't drinking a beer when I read that comment, or I'd be needing a new keyboard.

 

[gp956]

Marco, I think the revisionist aspect of your post is that your MO for objective observations and thus the behavior and overall meaning of your posts is that of a panshatter. What's worst is that when called out on it, you tend to be focused on minute details that don't even matter. It's like when a kid gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and will argue forever that he never meant to take anything.

The problem with your assessment on Hector Sanchez is that you never defined the parameters of what a reasonable successful call-up for Chez3 would look like. Now that there's actual "data," you try to be smart about it to let us know that the bar is far below than what you "feared." That is a cheap cop-out. Had you actually taken the time to reasonably set forth an expectation of a player in transition from the minors to the majors, I bet you we wouldn't be having this discussion. You tend to overvalue what your disposition is about players while downplaying the actual situation.

Damn, for got all about this thread. Nice summation of the situation.