or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › 2016 MLB Season Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2016 MLB Season Thread - Page 313

post #4681 of 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

How did I forget 2014?! Either way, the Triple Crown is nonsense and RBIs are irrelevant. Trout has been the best player in baseball every year since 2012 and this year is no exception. Josh Donaldson is also a douchebag. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20150612041334/http://a.pomf.se/ibhwrl.gif
post #4682 of 5149

Case in point. 

post #4683 of 5149

Can we get a thread title change? 

 

Alex Avila to the ChiSox. 

 

How much sitting on hands is Hal going to do this winter? 

post #4684 of 5149
The Dodgers seem to be standing pat this winter. With what- Kershaw and Seager? And Chapman when they already have Jansen

Next year will be an even year, smile.gif
post #4685 of 5149
Better than overpaying for aging talent.
post #4686 of 5149

I don't have much hope for the Yankees this season. I do like the Warren and Ryan for Castro trade though. 

post #4687 of 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorman View Post

for the record, trout won mvp last year (2014) and cabrera won mvp and the triple crown in 2012. cabrera won again in 2013 hitting 17 more home runs and 40 more RBI's than trout while all else being equal. 


You seem to have curious definition of "all else". I assume it's something like "the narrow range of facts that are consistent with my preferred conclusion".
post #4688 of 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


You seem to have curious definition of "all else". I assume it's something like "the narrow range of facts that are consistent with my preferred conclusion".

shh. Home runs and RBIs are the only thing that matters. Players do not run the bases, play defense, take walks, or anything else.

post #4689 of 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


You seem to have curious definition of "all else". I assume it's something like "the narrow range of facts that are consistent with my preferred conclusion".

the context of my statement (but who cares about context when you want to make an argument) was that there was a conspiracy that trout didn't win any MVP's (see the previous post).

 

I was simply trying to point out there was no conspiracy about trout not winning an MVP (he did win one). in 2013 the votes could have gone either way.  i really don't want to get into any senseless and endless arguments about who should have won the award.

 

if you really insist reading into what the "all else" means, then we will be in a senseless and endless argument. how clutch was each player? traditional vs advanced metrics, WAR?  how do you define "value"?  who made more money per at bat/home run?  who had more sponsorship? who made the playoffs?

post #4690 of 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorman View Post

the context of my statement (but who cares about context when you want to make an argument) was that there was a conspiracy that trout didn't win any MVP's (see the previous post).

I was simply trying to point out there was no conspiracy about trout not winning an MVP (he did win one). in 2013 the votes could have gone either way.  i really don't want to get into any senseless and endless arguments about who should have won the award.

if you really insist reading into what the "all else" means, then we will be in a senseless and endless argument. how clutch was each player? traditional vs advanced metrics, WAR?  how do you define "value"?  who made more money per at bat/home run?  who had more sponsorship? who made the playoffs?

Well, OK, but you can't make a dubious factual assertion and not expect people to question it. If you're offering it up as a premise of your conclusion asking whether it's in fact true seems like a pretty natural response.
Yes, what might constitute "all else" is extensive and subjective. That's why blithely saying it's all equal doesn't really make sense unless you're prepared to provide some -- let's say context -- for what that's supposed to encompass. Put differently, you can make a factual assertion in support of your syllogism and then claim that the accuracy of that assertion can't really be determined by mere mortals.
post #4691 of 5149

Anyone who argues against Trout is a big dummy head and that's all there is to it. 

post #4692 of 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


Well, OK, but you can't make a dubious factual assertion and not expect people to question it. If you're offering it up as a premise of your conclusion asking whether it's in fact true seems like a pretty natural response.
Yes, what might constitute "all else" is extensive and subjective. That's why blithely saying it's all equal doesn't really make sense unless you're prepared to provide some -- let's say context -- for what that's supposed to encompass.

 

look man. i didn't go to law school. and this is not my graduation thesis either.  it's supposed to be fun. and perhaps you should leave any residual court house mentality at the court house too. whatever you say on this website should be like a stop sign in los angeles - it just doesn't matter.  god knows we're here talking about baseball because we aren't allowed to vote for the MVP...

post #4693 of 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorman View Post

look man. i didn't go to law school. and this is not my graduation thesis either.  it's supposed to be fun. and perhaps you should leave any residual court house mentality at the court house too. whatever you say on this website should be like a stop sign in los angeles - it just doesn't matter.  god knows we're here talking about baseball because we aren't allowed to vote for the MVP...
What the fuck is your problem? It's not courthouse mentality, it's logic and discussion. Was it courthouse mentality when you took issue with whoever was saying Trout got robbed? Or are you the only one whose statements are supposed to be beyond challenge?

Of course what people say here doesn't matter. We're just talking for fun. But that doesn't mean that the only kind of conversation that's permitted is "yes, doctorman, you're spouting bullshit but we'll pretend to agree with you because we're all here to make you feel good." You made an argument that doesn't hold up. I pointed out why it doesn't hold up. It's surprising to you that such a thing would happen on a discussion board? Did you go to med school rather than law school? Did they teach you how to treat butthurt?
post #4694 of 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


What the fuck is your problem? It's not courthouse mentality, it's logic and discussion. Was it courthouse mentality when you took issue with whoever was saying Trout got robbed? Or are you the only one whose statements are supposed to be beyond challenge?

Of course what people say here doesn't matter. We're just talking for fun. But that doesn't mean that the only kind of conversation that's permitted is "yes, doctorman, you're spouting bullshit but we'll pretend to agree with you because we're all here to make you feel good." You made an argument that doesn't hold up. I pointed out why it doesn't hold up. It's surprising to you that such a thing would happen on a discussion board? Did you go to med school rather than law school? Did they teach you how to treat butthurt?

dude. please. relax. i'm not here to get into any nasty arguments with you.  it's the holidays. cheer up. 

 

seriously, if you have a problem with "dubious factual assertion" then you'd have a problem with the world.

 

if it's logic and discussion, i'm sure you can easily see why some voted for cabrera and others trout?  look you don't have to agree with me but i don't think i need to write an essay to defend my position either. let's just move on.  do you really need to win every argument?  if so, you're right, you win...

post #4695 of 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorman View Post

dude. please. relax. i'm not here to get into any nasty arguments with you.  it's the holidays. cheer up. 

seriously, if you have a problem with "dubious factual assertion" then you'd have a problem with the world.

if it's logic and discussion, i'm sure you can easily see why some voted for cabrera and others trout?  look you don't have to agree with me but i don't think i need to write an essay to defend my position either. let's just move on.  do you really need to win every argument?  if so, you're right, you win...
I'm totally relaxed, dude. I'm not the one getting defensive about someone disagreeing with me in a meaningless baseball discussion.
And yes, of course I can see how people might vote for any one of a number of players. There's no one "right" way to look at it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › 2016 MLB Season Thread