Toggle sidebar

Blue Jays GDT: (2016 v25) Next: vs BOS| Sun, Sept 11| 1pmET/10amPT | Buchholz vs Sanchez

Status
Not open for further replies.
PG Canuck

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,954
24,117
Let's ****ing go!

Good save by Osuna.

AL is back in our grasp after the world was falling yesterday. ;)
 
The Nemesis

The Nemesis

Semper Tyrannus
Apr 11, 2005
88,314
31,697
Langley, BC
Josh92 said:
Agreed. However both former players and Buck was a manager. More than any of us on here can say.
Click to expand...

That's a flawed argument. Playing the game and understanding it on a conscious, rational level are not the same thing. Lots of players just have an innate understanding or ability that defies any sort of lack of conscious thought or logical, rational, reasoned-out processes on their part. Otherwise we wouldn't see so many great players who end up as awful coaches or managers across various sports. Also there's a story early in Moneyball (the book. It's skipped in the movie) where Billy Beane relates the story of how he couldn't understand why he was failing as a big leaguer when Lenny Dykstra was succeeding even though Dykstra was something of a simpleton who basically treated the game as instinctual rather than conscious.

The fact that Buck and Pat played/managed the game is an appeal to authority, and is irrelevant. They can say stupid things just the same as anyone else. Their playing experience shouldn't give them greater leeway or greater forgiveness in terms of saying dumb things, nor should it automatically mean that their opinion or analysis automatically counts for more than someone else who wasn't a pro ball player.

Arguments succeed or fail on their own merits, regardless of who made them.
 

Josh92

Registered User
Mar 29, 2016
841
0
The Nemesis said:
That's a flawed argument. Playing the game and understanding it on a conscious, rational level are not the same thing. Lots of players just have an innate understanding or ability that defies any sort of lack of conscious thought or logical, rational, reasoned-out processes on their part. Otherwise we wouldn't see so many great players who end up as awful coaches or managers across various sports. Also there's a story early in Moneyball (the book. It's skipped in the movie) where Billy Beane relates the story of how he couldn't understand why he was failing as a big leaguer when Lenny Dykstra was succeeding even though Dykstra was something of a simpleton who basically treated the game as instinctual rather than conscious.

The fact that Buck and Pat played/managed the game is an appeal to authority, and is irrelevant. They can say stupid things just the same as anyone else. Their playing experience shouldn't give them greater leeway or greater forgiveness in terms of saying dumb things, nor should it automatically mean that their opinion or analysis automatically counts for more than someone else who wasn't a pro ball player.

Arguments succeed or fail on their own merits, regardless of who made them.
Click to expand...

True true....they get paid for their opinions though right? We dont. Thx for the novel though.
 
JaysCyYoung

JaysCyYoung

Registered User
Jan 1, 2009
6,088
17
York Region
Josh92 said:
True true....they get paid for their opinions though right? We dont. Thx for the novel though.
Click to expand...

Nemesis came out with a cogent, intelligent, well thought-out reply and this lame response is all you could muster in return?

What the hell, dude? He's absolutely right. It's insanely frustrating listening to a simpleton like Tabler. He has the dual honour of having been both a terrible player and analyst.
 
The Nemesis

The Nemesis

Semper Tyrannus
Apr 11, 2005
88,314
31,697
Langley, BC
Josh92 said:
True true....they get paid for their opinions though right? We dont. Thx for the novel though.
Click to expand...

1) 2 short paragraphs and a single extra sentence are a "novel"? :laugh: ok.

2) That's still an appeal to authority. The fact that they get paid for it is every bit as irrelevant to the quality of the argument as the fact that they are ex-players/managers. In fact, it's more likely that they get paid for their opinions because they're ex-players/managers than it is that they're getting paid because they actually put forth sound and high quality thoughts and analysis.

Again. the merit of an argument is in the argument itself. Not the reputation of who's making it.
 
Longshot

Longshot

Registered User
Jul 2, 2008
11,161
312
Ontario, Canada
JaysCyYoung said:
Nemesis came out with a cogent, intelligent, well thought-out reply and this lame response is all you could muster in return?

What the hell, dude? He's absolutely right. It's insanely frustrating listening to a simpleton like Tabler. He has the dual honour of having been both a terrible player and analyst.
Click to expand...

Umm, Tabler was a pretty good player. Not a superstar, but he was a career .282 hitter with a career OBP of .345.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/tablepa01.shtml
 
JaysCyYoung

JaysCyYoung

Registered User
Jan 1, 2009
6,088
17
York Region
Longshot said:
Umm, Tabler was a pretty good player. Not a superstar, but he was a career .282 hitter with a career OBP of .345.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/tablepa01.shtml
Click to expand...

Career OPS of 99+ while being nearly negative 11 WAR defensively and only a cumulative 3 WAR in 12 seasons.

That's replacement level performance.

He had two good seasons for the Indians in 1986 and 1987 and then dined on those outliers the remainder of his career.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom