The First Professional Golf Draft : CHAT

[Pack 500]

I'm probably more into analytics even more than EHB and Milk but I avoid bringing it up to avoid these arguments lol

 

[ehb5]

Dude. Even if one agreed they were equal offensively Trout blows him out of the water defensively.

This.

 

[Nosferatu]

This.

Foolish, like that has anything to do with what you were talking about!

 

[Pack 500]

Foolish, like that has anything to do with what you were talking about!

How does it not? The post I responded to UK stated that Canseco was every bit as good as Trout through age 26 and I pointed out why that was nonsense.

 

[ehb5]

Foolish, like that has anything to do with what you were talking about!

It literally has everything to do with it....

 

[Nosferatu]

It literally has everything to do with it....

Absolute Bullshit! nobody ever once mentioned defense, including you!

 

[Nosferatu]

How does it not? The post I responded to UK stated that Canseco was every bit as good as Trout through age 26 and I pointed out why that was nonsense.

Didn't read your post, this conversation was never about defense, who the fuck would make an argument for Canseco defensively?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

and lets not pretend Trout is a great defensive CF...

 

[Pack 500]

Didn't read your post, this conversation was never about defense, who the fuck would make an argument for Canseco defensively?

UK said Canseco was a better player through age 26. I would think defense counts a lot towards that. It's a third of the game along with hitting and baserunning.

 

[Pack 500]

and lets not pretend Trout is a great defensive CF...

Lord have mercy I'm not getting into this one again.

 

[ehb5]

Absolute Bullshit! nobody ever once mentioned defense, including you!

Yea because Trouts better offensively too. I just kind of assumed the defense part was implied. It was a discussion on the greatness of Trout and then became Trout v Canseco. How would defense not be relevant?

 

[Nosferatu]

Yea because Trouts better offensively too. I just kind of assumed the defense part was implied. It was a discussion on the greatness of Trout and then became Trout v Canseco. How would defense not be relevant?

I'm done here, cant have a conversation with someone who makes it up as they go...

 

[ehb5]

I'm done here, cant have a conversation with someone who makes it up as they go...

Nice excuse.

 

[Mebert]

I like Dexter Fowler in CF, that gangley motherfucker starts running around the bases it looks like a baby giraffe is stumbling around out there, but next thing you know, BOOM!, he is on 3rd base.

God bless you ya awkward bastard

 

[Nosferatu]

UK said Canseco was a better player through age 26. I would think defense counts a lot towards that. It's a third of the game along with hitting and baserunning.

Why are you telling me these things, this has nothing to do with what the conversation was actually about period! Fuck

 

[Nosferatu]

Nice excuse.

It's not an excuse im tired of arguing with you, the conversation was about offense and you know it, but then you tried to make it about defense too when you were proven wrong.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Lord have mercy I'm not getting into this one again.

Why?? he has played for 5 seasons so far and had 2 seasons of below average defense... I will agree that overall he is an above average defender... But I wouldn't call him an elite defender...

 

[Nosferatu]

Careful Milk, EHB could try to make the conversation about something else when you show him he's wrong...

 

[UK Cowboy]

The funny thing is that even if I threw you a bone and said ok Cansecos best year is equal to Trouts worst - thats still comparing Cansecos best ever season to Trouts worst ever!!!

I'm not saying Canseco was a better all around player than Trout, I'm saying his first 6 seasons the numbers were just as good, which they were. The player comparison was Trout to Mantle, and
how you are trying to make it an automatic that Trout will put up the exact same numbers for the next 15-16 years when history(Canseco) tell us we can't make that jump.

 

[ehb5]

It's not an excuse im tired of arguing with you, the conversation was about offense and you know it, but then you tried to make it about defense too when you were proven wrong.

Nope it was about overall players. I didnt need to bring up defense because your argument was already wrong with just offense. 500 brought up defense and was absolutely correct in doing so. I agreed, while not making a big point out of it.

So in summary - you were wrong before defense was brought up. Then it got brought up only further proving how wrong you originally were. And so you bailed cuz you had no argument.