Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
OK - If I offered you someone who hit 30 homers, or someone who hit 20 homers, in 600 atbats, are you taking the guy who hit 30 homers?

Again, too little context.

You interview two guys for a job.  Do you hire the one wearing the blue tie or the one wearing the green tie?

Oh I have no idea. Tie color has nothing to do with future job performance. If one graduated from Harvard, and another from SUNY Buffalo, knowing nothing else, I'd take the guy from Harvard.

I'd certainly take the guy with 30 homers over the guy with 20 homers. The odds likely aren't much different over who's better, but I'd think the 30-homer guy would likely be. You wouldn't take him? 

I guess by that logic, you would have taken Steve Finley (28 HRs in 560 ABs) over Tony Gwynn (17 HRs in 592 ABs) in 1997.

Good job.

If you actually used the logic I gave, you wouldn't have said that. But that's not surprising. 

The fact that you don't agree that the guy who hits 30 homers is likely better than the guy who hits 20 homers shows what you know about baseball. (using an argument you've used!)

What is the logic you gave?  "He hit more homers, he gooder?"

if you want to make decisions based on insufficient information, then good luck to you with that approach.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Overall, an out is an out.

If you told me, "wow it was really ****** for Trout to strike out with a runner on third and one out," I'd agree.

If you told me that Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play, I'd disagree.

So you're just rehashing last week's argument again, with nothing new to add?

Good job.  Thanks for wasting my time.

Says the guy who started the thread.

Yes, that's my main argument. An out is an out. Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Overall, an out is an out.

If you told me, "wow it was really ****** for Trout to strike out with a runner on third and one out," I'd agree.

If you told me that Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play, I'd disagree.

So you're just rehashing last week's argument again, with nothing new to add?

Good job.  Thanks for wasting my time.

Says the guy who started the thread.

Yes, that's my main argument. An out is an out. Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play

I'll make this statement:

Trout will be a better player in 2015 if he can cut down on his strikeouts.

And I'll also make this statement:

Outs in play are going to be better than strikeouts over the course of a season.

If you want to connect those two statements somehow, be my guest.  But I'm not interested in your putting words in my mouth.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
OK - If I offered you someone who hit 30 homers, or someone who hit 20 homers, in 600 atbats, are you taking the guy who hit 30 homers?

Again, too little context.

You interview two guys for a job.  Do you hire the one wearing the blue tie or the one wearing the green tie?

Oh I have no idea. Tie color has nothing to do with future job performance. If one graduated from Harvard, and another from SUNY Buffalo, knowing nothing else, I'd take the guy from Harvard.

I'd certainly take the guy with 30 homers over the guy with 20 homers. The odds likely aren't much different over who's better, but I'd think the 30-homer guy would likely be. You wouldn't take him? 

I guess by that logic, you would have taken Steve Finley (28 HRs in 560 ABs) over Tony Gwynn (17 HRs in 592 ABs) in 1997.

Good job.

If you actually used the logic I gave, you wouldn't have said that. But that's not surprising. 

The fact that you don't agree that the guy who hits 30 homers is likely better than the guy who hits 20 homers shows what you know about baseball. (using an argument you've used!)

What is the logic you gave?  "He hit more homers, he gooder?"

if you want to make decisions based on insufficient information, then good luck to you with that approach.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
OK - If I offered you someone who hit 30 homers, or someone who hit 20 homers, in 600 atbats, are you taking the guy who hit 30 homers?

Again, too little context.

You interview two guys for a job.  Do you hire the one wearing the blue tie or the one wearing the green tie?

Oh I have no idea. Tie color has nothing to do with future job performance. If one graduated from Harvard, and another from SUNY Buffalo, knowing nothing else, I'd take the guy from Harvard.

I'd certainly take the guy with 30 homers over the guy with 20 homers. The odds likely aren't much different over who's better, but I'd think the 30-homer guy would likely be. You wouldn't take him? 

I guess by that logic, you would have taken Steve Finley (28 HRs in 560 ABs) over Tony Gwynn (17 HRs in 592 ABs) in 1997.

Good job.

If you actually used the logic I gave, you wouldn't have said that. But that's not surprising. 

The fact that you don't agree that the guy who hits 30 homers is likely better than the guy who hits 20 homers shows what you know about baseball. (using an argument you've used!)

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 4:30:00 PM (view original):
I would too. Oh wait, are we doing that thing where you argue against points I'm not making again?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 4:40:00 PM (view original):
I thought I told you I can do pretty much anything I want.

Do you think you make the internet discussion rules?    Did I miss the memo?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
OK - If I offered you someone who hit 30 homers, or someone who hit 20 homers, in 600 atbats, are you taking the guy who hit 30 homers?

Again, too little context.

You interview two guys for a job.  Do you hire the one wearing the blue tie or the one wearing the green tie?

Oh I have no idea. Tie color has nothing to do with future job performance. If one graduated from Harvard, and another from SUNY Buffalo, knowing nothing else, I'd take the guy from Harvard.

I'd certainly take the guy with 30 homers over the guy with 20 homers. The odds likely aren't much different over who's better, but I'd think the 30-homer guy would likely be. You wouldn't take him? 

I guess by that logic, you would have taken Steve Finley (28 HRs in 560 ABs) over Tony Gwynn (17 HRs in 592 ABs) in 1997.

Good job.

If you actually used the logic I gave, you wouldn't have said that. But that's not surprising. 

The fact that you don't agree that the guy who hits 30 homers is likely better than the guy who hits 20 homers shows what you know about baseball. (using an argument you've used!)

LOL.  I'll take Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn over Dave Kingman and Rob Deer all day, every day. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 4:30:00 PM (view original):
I would too. Oh wait, are we doing that thing where you argue against points I'm not making again?

Point is, you're being retarded again.    As I said last week, and tec said today, you aren't giving enough info to make an intelligent decision.   Not that you'd make one anyway but you know what I'm saying. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 4:40:00 PM (view original):
I thought I told you I can do pretty much anything I want.

Do you think you make the internet discussion rules?    Did I miss the memo?

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 4:40:00 PM (view original):
I thought I told you I can do pretty much anything I want.

Do you think you make the internet discussion rules?    Did I miss the memo?

I just wanted to make sure. It can be confusing when you quote me and say something; it's as if you're trying to have an argument. But OK, I'll play too.