GDT 7 /14 GIANTS vs STROS

[MarcoPolo]

As I stated above (my most recent post or two) whether the Giants were right or wrong, or I was right or wrong, wasn't the point of all of this. I never said that. OTHER posters piled on and argued whether it would be better if he were in Fresno or not, but not me. (As I pointed out in my most recent posts, all my quotes from ST was just to show that "all you really said in the spring was that you "amazed" anyone here thought Sanchez might break with the team" and that I was mis-remembering.)

HA! BRAIN FART! I didn't finish my sentence. I think it's obvious that what I meant was :
(As I pointed out in my most recent posts, all my quotes from ST was just to show that "all you really said in the spring was that you "amazed" anyone here thought Sanchez might break with the team" and that I was mis-remembering WAS NOT TRUE.)

I hope I get this in before any further comment, I'd hate to be accused of "revisionist history" at a later date.

 

[Stokes1931]

Can't resist, this is so fun, at the Dogs' expense.

Dodgers Engage Full-Derp Mode (With Benny Hill Soundtrack) - From Our Editors - SBNation.com

 

[SFAnthem]

im just glad Hector Sanchez is up here with the big club

whiteside has no power and no clutch hitting ability and has a penchant for starting fights

The need for Hector's bat > his need for reps

 

[Epic Voidfield]

I prefer to evaluate players at the all-star break, and not after just 30 or 60 ABs. So, Hector Sanchez's pre-AS line is: .258/.264/.358/.622

That's actually even worse than I feared when I took the position that he shouldn't start the season in SF; he just isn't hitting very well at all. On the other hand, this guy is *clutch* ; he always seems to get the hit when it is absolutely needed (like tonight). That's (at least) the third game-winning hit he's had for the team so far.

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.

 

[tzill]

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.

I like Marco, but what you describe is classic FUD.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

A pantshitter is revisionist? Those are synonyms? I may be mis-interpreting your first sentence, but it sounds like you are saying that I am revisionist because I am a pantshitter. I can't agree (not talking about whether or not I *am* a pantshitter, just that pantshitter = revisionist ).

About "called out on it" and "minute details". First, my series of posts after gp's 'About all you really said in the spring was that you "amazed" anyone here thought Sanchez might break with the team' post and saying I "misremembered" wasn't about whether Sanchez should or shouldn't be in the majors. It was about me getting pissed because I felt it was an insulting and condescending post THAT WAS NOT TRUE. The posts after that were to show that I *did* post more than that single post (I posted quite a few) and the gp was the one with a "revisionist version of history" about what I said.

Now, that the whole "I was pissed by being talked down to by GP" has been addressed (again) ... what I find amusing about this "Hector Sanchez" topic is what everybody seems to be assuming about the purpose of my *original* post in this thread :

I prefer to evaluate players at the all-star break, and not after just 30 or 60 ABs. So, Hector Sanchez's pre-AS line is: .258/.264/.358/.622

That's actually even worse than I feared when I took the position that he shouldn't start the season in SF; he just isn't hitting very well at all. On the other hand, this guy is *clutch* ; he always seems to get the hit when it is absolutely needed (like tonight). That's (at least) the third game-winning hit he's had for the team so far.

Everybody seems to be *assuming* that I was trying to argue that he shouldn't be with the team now. I never said that. Talk about "confirmation bias" !

And lastly, "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." When I posted back in March : I also fear that Sanchez would put up a line similar to the one he had in Fresno last year : .261 /.315/.340 /.655. wasn't it pretty clear that he would have to hit *better* than that, since I was afraid that would be his offensive performance? Did I really have to add "To be successful, he would have to do better than that?" Seriously? So when his pre-AS line is: .258/.264/.358/.622, and I say "that's worse than I feared" I am somehow unclear?

To be (hopefully) crystal clear here : I am not trying to argue here, one way or another, whether Sanchez should be in the majors or not. I am responding to other posters' description of my behavior, whether I am "revisionist" or not, whether I only made one vague comment about being surprised that Hector would break ST with the Giants, or that I never said what I wanted from Hector and then later "copped out" by saying it was "lower than I feared". (This last point is obviously 100% wrong - I *did* say, using numbers {"data", if you will} what I was afraid of concerning Hector's offensive performance.)

Edit: Geez, I can't believe how many typos I made. And I bet there are probably more ...

 

[MarcoPolo]

Concerning "That's (at least) the third game-winning hit he's had for the team so far." ...

I was wrong (or the TV crew was on Sunday) - they said it was his 2nd game-winning hit. One of us is wrong, probably me. I am probably remembering a game where Hector either knocked in the tying run, or scored the winning run. I *think* he's done both of those.

 

[filosofy29]

Concerning "That's (at least) the third game-winning hit he's had for the team so far." ...

I was wrong (or the TV crew was on Sunday) - they said it was his 2nd game-winning hit. One of us is wrong, probably me. I am probably remembering a game where Hector either knocked in the tying run, or scored the winning run. I *think* he's done both of those.

I could be wrong, but I think you're right that he has (at least) 3 game winning rbi's/hits. I just think that the TV crew said that only 2 of them were of the "walk-off" variety.

My memory ain't what it once was though, lol.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Yeah, OK. In my mind "he won the game there" in the bottom of the 8th or the top of the 9th - obviously not a "walk off". And if one adds in "he tied the game and they went to extra innings" or "he scored the winning run" ("he made a huge difference in the game" or "they probably would have lost without him") then I bet it's more than 3.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

When I posted back in March : I also fear that Sanchez would put up a line similar to the one he had in Fresno last year : .261 /.315/.340 /.655. wasn't it pretty clear that he would have to hit *better* than that, since I was afraid that would be his offensive performance? Did I really have to add "To be successful, he would have to do better than that?" Seriously? So when his pre-AS line is: .258/.264/.358/.622, and I say "that's worse than I feared" I am somehow unclear?

Oh, so you are using a measly 153 AB sample stint in Fresneck to define your parameters and make your point that he would need to do better than that to satisfy your Fearful, Uncertain, and Doubtful expectations of Chez3? Whew! That clears things up for me, thank you.

 

[tzill]

Oh, so you are using a measly 153 AB sample stint in Fresneck to define your parameters and make your point that he would need to do better than that to satisfy your Fearful, Uncertain, and Doubtful expectations of Chez3? Whew! That clears things up for me, thank you.

A fair point, Marco. In any event, it might be moot if Chez heads to the DL.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

A fair point, Marco. In any event, it might be moot if Chez heads to the DL.

I see what you did there!

Oh, hell no!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Oh, so you are using a measly 153 AB sample stint in Fresneck to define your parameters and make your point that he would need to do better than that to satisfy your Fearful, Uncertain, and Doubtful expectations of Chez3? Whew! That clears things up for me, thank you.

Back in March, I said that I was afraid that he would hit no better than he did in Fresno. You can spin that anyway you want. Interesting that before you said "never defined the parameters" and now it's "small sample size". You are changing your objection in mid-stream, making it a "straw man argument". YES, I did point out what I thought what would be a measure of success, but NOW you say "mumble something mumble sample size". I pointed out what I thought would be a poor performance. Admit it, and quit changing the argument.

BUT, your changing the subject doesn't invalidate my previous points about my not lying. I'm sorry, I mean "revisionist history".

"Oh, I see what you did there". Yeah.

 

[MarcoPolo]

A fair point, Marco.

Actually, no it's not. I said back in Mar that I was afraid he'd hit like he did in Fresno. The claim was that I never set parameters. It was stated that I never said what I thought was a measure of success - I *did*.

Now, suddenly, my measure of success isn't good enough (suddenly, it is no longer that I *didn't* set one, but it is no longer good enough). Change of argument. I call "bullshit" - the argument is magically changing in mid-stream.

 

[MarcoPolo]

And again, my (recent) posts have nothing to do with whether Hector should be in SF or not - they are about the TOTALLY FALSE accusations concerning my posts. Which are COMPLETELY FALSE.

What's a "straw man" argument? well, you change the point just slightly enough and then "prove" that new point, moving the argument away from the original point.

It was claimed that I "never defined the parameters of what a reasonable successful call-up for Chez3 would look like." Sorry, I did. I provided numbers. Now, suddenly, it's about "sample size". Bull-fucking-shit. I said I was afraid he would produce in the majors like he did in Fresno. He produced worse. Attempting to suddenly change the argument doesn't invalidate that I *DID* define parameters as to what would be success.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

And again, my (recent) posts have nothing to do with whether Hector should be in SF or not - they are about the TOTALLY FALSE accusations concerning my posts. Which are COMPLETELY FALSE.

What's a "straw man" argument? well, you change the point just slightly enough and then "prove" that new point, moving the argument away from the original point.

It was claimed that I "never defined the parameters of what a reasonable successful call-up for Chez3 would look like." Sorry, I did. I provided numbers. Now, suddenly, it's about "sample size". Bull-fucking-shit. I said I was afraid he would produce in the majors like he did in Fresno. He produced worse. Attempting to suddenly change the argument doesn't invalidate that I *DID* define parameters as to what would be success.

You're almost there buddy, this one may yet be saved. I'll highlight the points for you. Just erase the surrounding FUD outside the bold. You can do it!

 

[MarcoPolo]

You don't even realize that you have completely changed the argument, do you? I'm sure that every other poster here realizes it. I'm sure they all realize that each time I show that these claims about what I posted are shown false, another, new target pops up (i.e., changing the argument).

Did I write more than one post back in Mar, or just the one "I'm amazed at how many people think Hector Sanchez should start the season with the team". Obviously, I wrote many more than one back then, so the claim was false.

Did I have a "revisionist version of history about what {I} were stating" back in March? Obviously not - the posts I quoted and the link I provided both show that.

After those two accusations fell flat, new ones had to be invented, and the brand new claim was that "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." Notice how the argument has been changed, and that it's being twisted into a claim (well, implication) that I said Hector was a failure, that he shouldn't be in SF *now*, etc. And this after all those posts where I said that my point was to show that the claims about "revisionist history" were false, and that I *wasn't* trying to argue anything about whether Hector should be in the majors or not. Classic "strawman" tactic here. I proved all the other claims false, so bring in something new that is similar and try to refute that.

- I never claimed (recently, not talking about ST) that Hector shouldn't be in SF or that he was a failure.

- BUT, it turns out that I *did* say what I thought a failure would be (back in a post made during ST). Heck, I even quoted it in *this thread* (to prove that I had made multiple posts concerning Hector back in ST) before this new claim so it was pretty obvious that I did so.

- THEN (this new claim having been proven wrong also), the argument changes AGAIN : the sample size was too small to be meaningful.

Everybody see the pattern here?

What I find most amusing about this latest new claim is how it is 100% bizarre. When I used his Fresno stats back in March to indicate that I didn't think he was ready, the "sample size" argument was used - that the stats were basically meaningless (the implication being that I shouldn't use them as an indicator of what he would hit in the future). Which is a perfectly reasonable claim - to not use a small sample size for modeling *future* performance. But it is completely valid for one to use a stat line as a measure of success or failure at the plate. It is perfectly valid for me to use .261 /.315/.340 /.655 as (one) measure of poor performance at the plate. To claim that those numbers (as a measure of success or failure) have a "sample size" is ludicrous. Is anybody going to claim that .261 /.315/.340 /.655 is a "good" performance? It may be acceptable, it may be piss poor, but is anyone really going to claim that .261 /.315/.340 /.655 isn't a pretty low bar to use to measure success? That the stat line has no "sample size", that it is a measuring stick?

I wonder what new and strange claim will be made now about what I posted. (Because that's all I am trying to do here - defend myself against character assassination. False (and insulting) claims were made, which I am trying to refute.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

In fact, the biggest FUD being thrown around here are claims about what I said, the FUD accompanied by obfuscation and downright lies.

Everybody can see that, right?

Edit: Damn! The last line in the 2nd-to-last paragraph in the previous post should have been :

Everybody agrees that a stat line has no "sample size", that it is a measuring stick?

Too late to edit the previous post at this time ...

 

[tzill]

Actually, no it's not. I said back in Mar that I was afraid he'd hit like he did in Fresno. The claim was that I never set parameters. It was stated that I never said what I thought was a measure of success - I *did*.

Now, suddenly, my measure of success isn't good enough (suddenly, it is no longer that I *didn't* set one, but it is no longer good enough). Change of argument. I call "bullshit" - the argument is magically changing in mid-stream.

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.

 

[tzill]

And again, my (recent) posts have nothing to do with whether Hector should be in SF or not - they are about the TOTALLY FALSE accusations concerning my posts. Which are COMPLETELY FALSE.

What's a "straw man" argument? well, you change the point just slightly enough and then "prove" that new point, moving the argument away from the original point.

It was claimed that I "never defined the parameters of what a reasonable successful call-up for Chez3 would look like." Sorry, I did. I provided numbers. Now, suddenly, it's about "sample size". Bull-fucking-shit. I said I was afraid he would produce in the majors like he did in Fresno. He produced worse. Attempting to suddenly change the argument doesn't invalidate that I *DID* define parameters as to what would be success.

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."