2009 Yankees Game Thread

[ORS]

The latter group does not define who gets to play the game, it's just an ordering organization of who can play, the positions in the field (and those who are capable of performing at those positions) do. His peers are the others who can man the same position.

[a700hitter]

The latter group does not define who gets to play the game' date=' it's just an ordering organization of who can play, the positions in the field (and those who are capable of performing at those positions) do. His peers are the others who can man the same position.[/quote']That's just one definition of peer established for purposes of a certain system of valuation. When there is a discussion of the great lead off hitters that discussion would include Wade Boggs 3B, Ricky Henderson LF, Pete Rose LF/3B/1B/2B, Lou Brock LF, Rod Carew 2B, Tony Gwynn etc. They played many different positions. As you stated, the scale of value can be anything. There is no single measure. As I have pointed out previously, all of this is far afield from my observation that Damon's on-field production has not declined in the 4 years since he walked as many had predicted.

[ORS]

Careful, make sure you stretch out thoroughly before attempting such high levels of back patting.

 

You can have a discussion about who was the best player born on May 20th, but value is relative to peers, and in baseball your peers are those that play the same position.

[Dipre]

Forget it, ORS, a700 makes the strawman a way of life, arguing with him is useless.

 

He knows very well the following things:

 

A) Damon IS NOT LEADING OFF FOR THE Yankees, which is the basis for his whole argument.

 

B ) Positional scarcity plays a huge factor in determining offensive production in comparison to a player's peers, because, if, say, Hanley Ramirez was moved to a COF, he's be an above average producer, maybe and All-Star reserve, and if moved, to, say, 1B, he doesn't even make the team.

 

What he is carefully avoiding in his argument is that good offensive numbers in primarily defensive positions such as the central line (C, 2B, SS, CF), are much easier to acquire than in primarily offensive positions, or the corners, and also something else, i saw Jacko take into account Damon's 2009 numbers to back up a700's argument, LOLOLOLOLOL, it's May 19th, expect Damon to finish with a rather pedestrian OPS by positional standards which every person except a700 takes into account when trying to establish offensive value for a baseball players.

 

"But, but, but, he has an outside chance at 3,000 hits".

 

Yeah, that argument holds about as much water as a 6-year -old's bladder after drinking a liter of coke.

[a700hitter]

Careful, make sure you stretch out thoroughly before attempting such high levels of back patting.

 

You can have a discussion about who was the best player born on May 20th, but value is relative to peers, and in baseball your peers are those that play the same position.

So you declare that there is only one official method of determining a peer group for purposes of determining the value of a players performance? Damon's defensive position is left field. I don't watch much NL, but Damon compares pretty well with most AL left fielders that I have seen this season.

 

Again, none of this is relevant to my assertion that Damon's on-field production has not declined in the 4 years since he left, as many had predicted that it would. That is an irrefutable fact that several of you keep trying to refute with various interpretations of value. His production speaks for itself. Look at his numbers year over year. You don't need to refer to any conversion table or anything. pat-pat:D

[a700hitter]

Forget it, ORS, a700 makes the strawman a way of life, arguing with him is useless.

 

He knows very well the following things:

 

A) Damon IS NOT LEADING OFF FOR THE Yankees, which is the basis for his whole argument.

 

B ) Positional scarcity plays a huge factor in determining offensive production in comparison to a player's peers, because, if, say, Hanley Ramirez was moved to a COF, he's be an above average producer, maybe and All-Star reserve, and if moved, to, say, 1B, he doesn't even make the team.

 

What he is carefully avoiding in his argument is that good offensive numbers in primarily defensive positions such as the central line (C, 2B, SS, CF), are much easier to acquire than in primarily offensive positions, or the corners, and also something else, i saw Jacko take into account Damon's 2009 numbers to back up A's argument, LOLOLOLOLOL, it's May 19th, expect Damon to finish with a rather pedestrian OPS by positional standards which every person except a700 takes into account when trying to establish offensive value for a baseball players.

 

"But, but, but, he has an outside chance at 3,000 hits".

 

Yeah, that argument holds about as much water as a 6-year -old's bladder after drinking a liter of coke.

Boy, you are a dumb ass. I debated your theories regarding value to entertain myself, but as arguments to refute my factual assertion, they are irrelevant and ineffectual. Here, once again, just to leave no doubt about my position is my factual assertion:

 

Damon's on-field production has not declined in the 4 years since he left, as many had predicted that it would. His production speaks for itself. Look at his numbers year over year. You don't need to refer to any conversion table or anything. It's a fact, not a strawman. Jeesh, i thought you are an attorney. God help your clients.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Board is f***ing awesome today.

[Dipre]

Boy, you are a dumb ass. I debated your theories regarding value to entertain myself, but as arguments to refute my factual assertion, they are irrelevant and ineffectual. Here, once again, just to leave no doubt about my position is my factual assertion:

 

Damon's on-field production has not declined in the 4 years since he left, as many had predicted that it would. His production speaks for itself. Look at his numbers year over year. You don't need to refer to any conversion table or anything. It's a fact, not a strawman. Jeesh, i thought you are an attorney. God help your clients.

 

The master of strawman.

 

If you point out one time i have said Damon's stats have declined, you win a cookie.

 

Listen, Einstein, we're talking about positional value, and since i have the vision to distinguish between the obvious difference of offensive performance when compared to other players in the same position, and offensive decline, which is a phrase i have not used in any of my posts, then my clients are in very good shape, however, your friends at the old people home must be beginning to lose patience with your inability to relate subjects within a conversation.

 

And by the way, don't talk about being a dumb-ass if you fail to acknowledge the difference between position and decline, it's making you look like a colossal douche.

[yankees228]

This is pretty stupid, because no one is really wrong. a700 is correct that Damon's pure offensive production has not declined, as many people claimed it would when he left the Red Sox following 2005.

 

ORS and DipreG are both correct in their positional argument.

[Dipre]

This is pretty stupid, because no one is really wrong. a700 is correct that Damon's pure offensive production has not declined, as many people claimed it would when he left the Red Sox following 2005.

 

ORS and DipreG are both correct in their positional argument.

 

But the problem is, no one talked about decline.

 

I called him out because he was using Damon's balls as a substitute for Listerine, talking as if Damon is some kind of elite performer, don't get me wrong, he's pretty good, but my argument was that his value was not as high since he became a COF as it was when he was in center, he turned it around to imply that i had somehow implied that Damon's offensive production has declined, which i haven't, i merely stated what is the truth, that performance would be much more valuable in CF, because the Yanks are paying Damon a shitload of money to be an about-average LF.

[a700hitter]

The master of strawman.

 

If you point out one time i have said Damon's stats have declined, you win a cookie.

 

Listen, Einstein, we're talking about positional value, and since i have the vision to distinguish between the obvious difference of offensive performance when compared to other players in the same position, and offensive decline, which is a phrase i have not used in any of my posts, then my clients are in very good shape, however, your friends at the old people home must be beginning to lose patience with your inability to relate subjects within a conversation.

 

And by the way, don't talk about being a dumb-ass if you fail to acknowledge the difference between position and decline, it's making you look like a colossal douche.

I am not talking about any of the above. These are all your arguments and assertions which you and others have made in response to my very simple, but accurate an yet unrefuted factual assertion that went something like this:

 

Damon's on-field production has not declined in the 4 years since he left, as many had predicted that it would.

 

Here is the link to my original post:

http://www.talksox.com/forum/damn-yankees/12144-2009-yankees-game-thread-64.html#post408355

 

But keep trying to refute this assertion with your irrelevant arguments.

[yankees228]

But the problem is, no one talked about decline.

 

I called him out because he was using Damon's balls as a substitute for Listerine, talking as if Damon is some kind of elite performer, don't get me wrong, he's pretty good, but my argument was that his value was not as high since he became a COF as it was when he was in center, he turned it around to imply that i had somehow implied that Damon's offensive production has declined, which i haven't, i merely stated what is the truth, that performance would be much more valuable in CF, because the Yanks are paying Damon a shitload of money to be an about-average LF.

 

No talked about decline in this conversation, but a700 is claiming that many people were saying that when he left the Red Sox (at least that's what I think he's saying).

[Dipre]

I am not talking about any of the above. These are all your arguments and assertions which you and others have made in response to my very simple, but accurate an yet unrefuted factual assertion that went something like this:

 

Damon's on-field production has not declined in the 4 years since he left, as many had predicted that it would.

 

Here is the link to my original post:

http://www.talksox.com/forum/damn-yankees/12144-2009-yankees-game-thread-64.html#post408355

 

But keep trying to refute this assertion with your irrelevant arguments.

 

Boy, you keep looking for FAIL like it's your long-lost son.

 

TheKilo called you out on Damon's value not being as high as a COF.

 

I agreed to his statement, and that's where the argument started.

 

We've been arguing about his value as a COF all along, but now that you've been proven wrong, you try to steer away the argument into:

 

"Bu bu bu but i was talking about offensive decline"

 

Not once during the argument have we talked about offensive decline, because i'd be an idiot to say he has declined, what i do state, and correctly so, is that he isn't that good as a COF as he'd be as a CF.

 

And this, my Nobel-winning friend, is a fact.

[a700hitter]

But the problem is, no one talked about decline.

 

I called him out because he was using Damon's balls as a substitute for Listerine, talking as if Damon is some kind of elite performer, don't get me wrong, he's pretty good, but my argument was that his value was not as high since he became a COF as it was when he was in center, he turned it around to imply that i had somehow implied that Damon's offensive production has declined, which i haven't, i merely stated what is the truth, that performance would be much more valuable in CF, because the Yanks are paying Damon a shitload of money to be an about-average LF.

I never used the word "elite" nor "great". I love how things get twisted when my words are right out there in black and white. I said he was "pretty good" and "very good". Does that translate to "elite"? my goodness.

[Dipre]

I never used the word "elite" nor "great". I love how things get twisted when my words are right out there in black and white. I said he was "pretty good" and "very good". Does that translate to "elite"? my goodness.

 

Hey, i never said anything about "decline". I love how things get twisted when my words are right out there in black and white.I said he was not as good as a COF.Does that translate to "decline"

[Gom]

First of all, you guys are both correct. Realize that had the Sox kept Damon, they probably would have shifted him over for Ellsbury..or probably have Santana as they would have parted with Ellsbury to get him.

 

The reality is that on Damon, the Sox FO dropped the ball, and got Crisp instead, which was a mistake. Now, in my opinion, offense up the middle is a bonus, and that point is well made. Considering Damon was a CF for 2 1/2 seasons and a left fielder for 1 1/2 seasons, his overall production has been a positive. He's been an above average LF offensively, and a very good offensive CF. Also, defense is not as important in the COF, so his deficiencies are overshadowed by his offensive abilities.

 

This year, he's been a godsend for the Yankees, their best hitter by far. I really hope Damon comes back on a two year deal, with Matsui being let go. Damon would probably sign for [guessing here] about 8-10 million per, which, when coupled with Matsui and Nady, would leave the Yankees with 21-24 million to play with for a bona fide OF and pitcher. Jason Bay and Erik Bedard?

[a700hitter]

Boy, you keep looking for FAIL like it's your long-lost son.

 

TheKilo called you out on Damon's value not being as high as a COF.

 

I agreed to his statement, and that's where the argument started.

 

We've been arguing about his value as a COF all along, but now that you've been proven wrong, you try to steer away the argument into:

 

"Bu bu bu but i was talking about offensive decline"

 

Not once during the argument have we talked about offensive decline, because i'd be an idiot to say he has declined, what i do state, and correctly so, is that he isn't that good as a COF as he'd be as a CF.

 

And this, my Nobel-winning friend, is a fact.

Again, here is the link to my initial post.

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/damn-yankees/12144-2009-yankees-game-thread-64.html#post408355

 

Those who predicted his precipitous offensive decline were very wrong.

 

Everthing that followed about value were irrelevant and ineffectual attempts to refute a factually correct statement. Yes, I engaged in your irrelevant arguments in some of my posts, but that doesn't make them any less irrelevant to my initial post.

[Dipre]

Again, here is the link to my initial post.

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/damn-yankees/12144-2009-yankees-game-thread-64.html#post408355

 

 

 

Everthing that followed about value were irrelevant and ineffectual attempts to refute a factually correct statement. Yes, I engaged in your irrelevant arguments in some of my posts, but that doesn't make them any less irrelevant to my initial post.

 

Cowardice.

 

Had you not been interested in proving a point, you would not have engaged my "irrelevant arguments"

 

Jesus Christ man, grow a pair!

[a700hitter]

Not once during the argument have we talked about offensive decline' date=' because i'd be an idiot to say he has declined[/quote'] You have finally addressed the assertion in my post and agreed with it. Thank you.

[a700hitter]

Cowardice.

 

Had you not been interested in proving a point, you would not have engaged my "irrelevant arguments"

 

Jesus Christ man, grow a pair!

Oh, I still don't agree that the only way to judge an offensive player is with reference to his defensive position. That maybe true for picking fantasy teams, but that's about it. Lead off hitters are a different type of offensive player. They are the catalysts for the offense. Most have speed, but others do not, and they compensate with great bat control and high OBP. Leadoff hitters throughout the ages have played many different positions. I judge them against other lead off hitters in evaluating their performance and their careers. As for all other players, I rate their offensive performance against each other regardless of their defensive position. I don't lump them into defensive positions which are irrelevant to their offensive production. I still don't agree with your irrelevant argument, but i got tired of arguing about it. After all, it was irrelevant to my factual assertion.

[RobiForMVP]

2-1.

A-Rod homered.

[Dipre]

You have finally addressed the assertion in my post and agreed with it. Thank you.

 

Oh' date=' I still don't agree that the only way to judge an offensive player is with reference to his defensive position. That maybe true for picking fantasy teams, but that's about it. Lead off hitters are a different type of offensive player. They are the catalysts for the offense. Most have speed, but others do not, and they compensate with great bat control and high OBP. Leadoff hitters throughout the ages have played many different positions. I judge them against other lead off hitters in evaluating their performance and their careers. As for all other players, I rate their offensive performance against each other regardless of their defensive position. I don't lump them into defensive positions which are irrelevant to their offensive production. I still don't agree with your irrelevant argument, but i got tired of arguing about it. After all, it was irrelevant to my factual assertion.[/quote']

 

Sir, you keep putting words in my keyboard.

 

You started arguing with Kilo about the positional value of Damon.

 

I corrected your FAIL in stating that Damon was an above-average COF.

 

Never did i speak of decline, where in my posts did i talk about delcine, that was not the argument to begin with, and you're just turning it around to justify the suckiness of your explanation.

 

Now you come out and say "Duh, uh-huh, glad you agree with me". I can't disagree with you because that was never the argument to begin with.

 

Again, grow a pair and admit that, by positional standards, Johnny Damon is not an above-average offensive player.

[jacksonianmarch]

he has been thus far this yr

[Dipre]

he has been thus far this yr

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOL.

 

May 19.

[jacksonianmarch]

Why is this chump dominating our lineup?

[BoSox21]

maybe your ball-washing thread jinxed them

[a700hitter]

Again' date=' grow a pair and admit that, by positional standards, Johnny Damon is not an above-average offensive player.[/quote']I don't agree that positional standards are the most valid way to judge the offensive performance of players. I guess if you judged Damon against COF's he would not fair as well as against CF's, but why would he be judged against COF's and not just LF's? LF's as a group are not that strong. I'm not sure that they are as strong as the CF position in the AL. Why would he be judged against all COFs? Most LFs can't play RF because they don't have the arm strength. Damon is likely to play some CF during the year, but he will see zero time in RF because his arm is a limp noodle. The same can be said for lots of LF's. LF's are more apt to play CF than RF, so why judge them against RF's. If the positional value standard was the only standard by which offense was measured, what would have happened to the likes of Pete Rose, Lou Brock and others?

[jacksonianmarch]

CC dealing again. The question is, who comes out for the 8th. He's at 105 pitches. Bruney is back. Mo had a day off yesterday, so who knows. Tomorrow is Hughes, so we might not need them.

[jacksonianmarch]

Here's a chance to get some insurance. Cmon Yanks.

[Dipre]

I don't agree that positional standards are the most valid way to judge the offensive performance of players. I guess if you judged Damon against COF's he would not fair as well as against CF's' date=' but why would he be judged against COF's and not just LF's? LF's as a group are not that strong. I'm not sure that they are as strong as the CF position in the AL. Why would he be judged against all COFs? Most LFs can't play RF because they don't have the arm strength. Damon is likely to play some CF during the year, but he will see zero time in RF because his arm is a limp noodle. The same can be said for lots of LF's. LF's are more apt to play CF than RF, so why judge them against RF's. If the positional value standard was the only standard by which offense was measured, what would have happened to the likes of Pete Rose, Lou Brock and others?[/quote']

 

Changed your tone, have you?

 

And for the record, once/if (wind tunnel) Damon returns to his usual offensive standard, guess what he will be?

 

An average/below average offensive Left Fielder.

 

Better?